TO THE PUBLIC. 

A REVIEW 

Copy 2 “ THE 

1EP0RT OF HOV. HORACE MAYNARD, 

Chairman of the Committee of Investigation, into the conduct and 
accounts of William Cullom , late Clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives ; and an exposition of the frauds practiced on the 
Treasury , the Contingent Fund of the House , and on individ¬ 
uals , by the said William Cullom. 


No. 1. y ~y* 

It is well known that, on account of the frauds practiced on 
the Undersigned and others, by William Cullom, late Clerk of the 
House of Representatives, while pretending to execute the House 
resolution of July 7, 1856, and for presenting a false account 
against the Treasury of alleged purchases of certain books under 
that resolution, the Undersigned made an exposition of those 
transactions in the Daily Globe, of December 7, 1857, accom¬ 
panied with authentic copies of the documents, and the proceed¬ 
ings of the accounting officers of the Treasury, on the subject of 
said account; and that, upon the matters of that exposition, and 
other charges against the late Clerk, a special committee of the 
House was appointed “to investigate his conduct and accounts.” 
On the 28th February, more than twelve months after the com¬ 
mittee was appointed, its chairman, the Hon. Horace Maynard, 
of Tennessee, made a final report of its proceedings to the House; 
and on the next day, the 1st of March instant, a garbled portion 
of that report was published in an evening paper of this city, 
occupying nearly the whole of the first page of said paper, de¬ 
tached from the resolutions that made an essential part of that 
report, and from the copious testimony taken before the com¬ 
mittee, which constituted the reliable evidence of the frauds 
charged and proved. The hasty publication of that garbled por¬ 
tion of the report, however furnished or procured, being a de¬ 
liberate attempt to exonerate the late Clerk, in public opinion, 
from all accountability for “malfeasance,” “misfeasance,” “cor¬ 
ruption,” or “dereliction of duty,” it equally behooves the Under¬ 
signed in the same behalf, noiv , to make an exposition of that 
garbled portion of the report, in order to disabuse the public 
mind of the impression sought to be made by its hasty publica¬ 
tion, detached from the resolutions, and especially from the ample 
and reliable testimony as its proper antidote. 

How this portion of the report found its way so promptly into 
the columns of said paper, is not easy to conjecture, unless 
the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Horace Maynard, of 
Tennessee, furnished an extra copy of it to the late Clerk to 
manufacture a short-lived exculpatory public opinion in advance 


FT 

MEADE 

JK 1432 
. M5 








2 REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 

of the testimony of some eighty odd -witnesses and the accom¬ 
panying resolutions, which, with this garbled portion thus de¬ 
tached therefrom, make up the whole of this voluminous report 
ordered to be printed by the House, which may not be expected 
to issue from the press in a month or more. I have, however, 
been favored with a copy of the resolutions, also, from the Clerk’s 
office, by the proprietor of the Daily Globe, through his Reporters, 
in order to bring them to public notice at once, along with the 
remarks I purpose to make upon the said garbled portion of the 
report prematurely sent forth on a deceptive errand, possibly to 
operate on the elections in Tennessee before the entire report 
of the testimony can make its veritable statements fully known. 
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the palliative terms, and the soft¬ 
ened manner of diction by which the author of this portion of 
the report would feign to disguise the facts of enormity revealed 
by the testimony it affects to refer to—like the revolting linea¬ 
ments of a harlot’s face to a scrutinizing eye, peering through 
the transparencies of a virgin mask it pollutes for their conceal¬ 
ment—those facts are there , standing ready to proclaim the 
transgressions of the delinquent, on being stripped of those as¬ 
sumed habiliments of innocence to deceive a credulous take-upon- 
trust, unscrutinizing public. 

Before entering upon the ceremony of removing these deceptive 
habiliments of assumed innocence, we will invite attention to the 
inordinate and active bidding of Mr. Maynard, prompted by his 
delinquent friend, for the chairmanship of the select committee 
that had become inevitable, and was about to be ordered, when 
the subject was under discussion, at the instance of Mr. Cling- 
man, in the House, on that occasion.—See Congressional Globe,~ 
of Dec. 19, 1857. 

Mr. Maynard said : 

“ I believe the question before the House at this time, if I understand the 
reading of the resolution, is on an inquiry into the character and cost of the sta¬ 
tionery purchased for the use of the House. The discussion upon that resolu¬ 
tion seems to have taken a wide range, and to have gone into the general con¬ 
duct of the outgoing Clerk. Although a personal friend of that gentleman, I shall 
not here in my place or elsewhere, by any word or vote or act of mine, attempt 
to screeu him from any full, thorough, sifting investigation into his conduct, if any 
member of the House believes that such an investigation will prove either proper 
or profitable. I am now instructed by the outgoing Clerk, to say that he demands 
it. Thus instructed, I shall, contrary to what was my original intention when I 
rose, to leave to some one else to move the investigation, before concluding my 
remarks, move, myself, that the investigation shall be made by a special and 
select committee of t >e House. 

“ I know nothing of the accusations that are made against that officer. I 
have not taken the trouble even to wade through the pages of matter that have 
been piled up here,” &c., &c., &c. 

Thus Mr. Maynard and his personal friend, Mr. Cullom, the 
outgoing Clerk, whose conduct and accounts were arraigned be¬ 
fore the House, seem to have eagerly leaped into the whirlwind to 


<yf^ 


a-- 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 3 

direct the storm until it should die away through a twelve months’ 
voyage into the calms of the dead sea—of an expired Congress; 
and so, with extraordinary management, they would seem to have 
succeeded. Mr. Cullom, with his awful, overbearing, and domi¬ 
neering presence, having been in continual attendance on the 
examination of witnesses before the committee, and occasionally 
raising altercations with them, obviously, as was supposed, with 
the view of intimidation, or contravening their testimony, or other¬ 
wise modifying and giving a gloss of extenuation to results, 
having thus brought the investigation down to within a few 
days of the end of a six or seven months’ session, Mr. Maynard 
made a report stating progress of the committee in examining 
seventy-eight witnesses, and asked leave to continue the inves¬ 
tigation during the next session, which was granted, of course, 
though requested to report the testimony of the seventy-eight 
witnesses already taken, that it might be printed in the interval; 
but that was objected to by Mr. Maynard, as not being so con¬ 
templated or directed by the committee. After exhausting the 
whole of the subsequent session within a few days of its close, 
the long-expected report was made, but too late for it to be 
printed and laid on the tables of the expiring Congress. 

That portion of the garbled report which has been published 
and is now before me, presents sundry criminal aspects of the 
late Clerk’s conduct and accounts, notwithstanding the mitiga¬ 
ting terms by which they are accompanied, besides other testi¬ 
mony not referred to in it, all of which call for a statement here 
of some of the provisions of law and Treasury regulations violated 
by the late Clerk, for which he is amenable nevertheless, as the 
kind words of a devoted friend do not alter the facts or repeal 
the laws which require to be executed without fear, favor, or 
affection, viz: 

The 12th section of “ An act more effectually to provide for 
the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and 
for other purposes,” approved March 3d, 1825, says: 

“ Sec. 12. And be it further enacted , That if any officer shall be guilty of ex¬ 
tortion , under or by color of his office, every person so offending shall, on con¬ 
viction thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment 
not exceeding one year, according to the aggravation of the offence.” Statutes 
at Large, vol. 4, p. 118. See eases of extortion by the late Clerk, as given in 
the testimony. 

The 16th section of “ An act to provide for the better organi¬ 
zation of the Treasury, and for the collection, safe-keeping, 
transfer, and disbursement of the public money,” approved Aug. 
6, 1846, says : 

“ Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That all officers and other persons charged 
by this act, or any other act, with the safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement 
of the public moneys, other than connected with the Post Office Department, 
are hereby required to keep an accurate entry of each sum received, and of 


4 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


each payment or transfer; and that if any one of said officers, or those con¬ 
nected with the Post Office Department, shall convert to his own use, in any 
way whatever, or shall use, by way of investment in any kind of property or 
merchandise, or shall loan, with or without interest, or shall deposit in any bank, 
or shall exchange for other funds, except as allowed by this act, any portion of 
the public money intrusted to him for safe-keeping, disbursement, transfer, or 
for any other purpose, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged to be an 
embezzlement of so much of said money as shall be thus taken, converted, in¬ 
vested, used, loaned, deposited, or exchanged, which is hereby declared to be a 
felony,’’ &c. 

The deposit of moneys by Mr. Cullom, intrusted to him for 
disbursement on account of the contingent expenses of the House 
of Representatives, in the bank of Suter, Lea & Co., was such 
a violation of law denounced as felony aforesaid ; and checks 
drawn on said deposit, as commutation, in lieu of newspapers, 
books, and any other articles allowed to members by express 
provision of law, were diversions of such amounts from their 
legitimate object, no commutation for money being authorized by 
law in any case. For this illegitimate commutation traffic, see 
testimony in this case; and also the views of the committee in 
the case of Darling and Hackney, printed report, pp. 3 and 4, 
saying: 

“It is clearly established by evidence that a regular profitable business has 
been carried on in this city of Washington for years, by the booksellers of the 
city, in Congressional publications intended for gratuitous distribution among 
the people, in the course of which the booksellers purchase these documents 
fresh from the press, at prices greatly below their cost to the Government, and 
sell them again at a large profit. * * * * it is obvious, and so the evi¬ 

dence before the committee indicates, that this trade in books could not exist 
to the extent proven without culpable negligence, or the misappropriation of 
the books by members of Congress.” 

And the committee recommended the adoption of the follow¬ 
ing resolution : 

“ Resolved, That all extra copies of documents and books printed by order of 
the House of Representatives, and divided equally among the members of the 
House, are intended for gratuitous distribution to public libraries and among 
the people, and are given to members respectively in trust for that purpose; 
and that any other use or disposition of the same is a violation of the trust 
aforesaid, and meets the unqualified disapprobation of this House.” 

This applies equally to all books ordered by Congress for dis¬ 
tribution. 

The 16th section of the aforesaid act continues thus: 

“ And any failure to pay over or to produce the public money intrusted to 
such person shall be held and taken to be bona fide evidence of such embezzle¬ 
ment. And if any officer charged with the disbursement of public moneys shall 
accept, or receive, or transmit to the Treasury Department, to be allowed in his 
favor, any receipt or voucher from a creditor of the United States, without hav¬ 
ing paid to such creditor in such funds as the said officer may have received for 
disbursement, or such other funds as he may be authorized by this act to take 
in exchange, th e full amount specified in such receipt or voucher, every such act 
shall be deemed to be a conversion by such officer to his own use of the amount 
specified in such receipt or voucher ; and any officer or agent of the United States, 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


5 


and all ^ersons'advising or participating in said act, being convicted thereof be¬ 
fore any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced 
to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, nor more than ten years y 
and to a fine equal to the amount of the money embezzled,” &c. 

There appears to have been several instances of this kind of 
embezzlement by the late Clerk, to which the aforesaid portion 
of the report alludes, amounting to $1,800, with a labored effort 
to explain it away, by a subsequent payment of the like amount 
to offset it in the Treasury, under the kind advice of one of his 
employees;—all of which is too long to quote here, but may be 
clearly understood from the testimony when published, or by 
transcripts from the books of the Treasury, as indicated by the 
following continuation of the said 16th section, viz: 

“ And upon the trial of any indictment against any person for embezzling 
public money under the provisions of this act, it shall be sufficient evidence, for 
the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to produce a transcript 
from the books and proceedings of the Treasury, as required in civil cases,” 
&c.—under the act of March 3, 1797. 

The “ Regulations” prescribed by the Treasury Department 
have, according to the provisions of the aforesaid act and other 
laws, the force and validity of law. 

Among the accounts required by said regulations to be ren¬ 
dered monthly, of the receipts and disbursements of public 
money, are “ those of the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives, and the disbursing officers of the 
Executive Departments.” See Treasury Regulations, No. 600, 
p. 332. 

Also the Regulation No. 615, p. 342, says: 

“ In respect to services or supplies employed or obtained by the disbursing 
officer, he is bound to act exclusively for the interest of the United States, and 
employ the services, and obtain the supplies, on the best terms, in open market. 
It follows that he can have no interest, direct or indirect, in furnishing supplies 
or procuring such services, whether the account be in his own name or other¬ 
wise. Supervising or employing officers are prohibited from appointing or em¬ 
ploying under them any person in their private employment, or any relative or 
dependent , and from giving the patronage of furnishing supplies to any such 
person, or to any other person, without comparing, from time to time, his prices 
with those of others ; and finally, from purchasing from second hands, instead of 
regular dealers in, or manufacturers of, the articles required.” 

In respect to the late Clerk’s agent, H. Tyler, for the pur¬ 
chase of books, and other agents for the purchase of other sup¬ 
plies, it is proper to state here these principles of law, viz : 

1. That “ the delegation of power to an agent may be done 
by deed, parol, or mere employment.” 

2. That “ a common law maxim is, that the power delegated 
to an agent by his principal cannot be delegated by him to a 
third person.” 

3. That “ an agent owes to his principal the unremitted exer¬ 
tion of his skill and ability, and that all his transactions in that 
character be distinguished by punctuality, honor, and integrity.” 


6 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


4. That u an agent is liable to misfeasance as to third per¬ 
sons, when, intentionally or ignorantly , he commits a wrong upon 
the rights or property of another.” See Bouvier, and the au¬ 
thorities he quotes. 

From these rules or principles of law, and the preceding Trea¬ 
sury regulations, it is manifest that all the persons employed by 
the late Clerk in purchasing supplies of every or any description 
were his agents, and that they were responsible for the faithful 
discharge of their duty in that character, and that he, the super¬ 
vising and employing officer , was equally responsible for them 
and for his own remissness or connivance at their peculations, 
avowedly amounting to 25 and 33| per cent, on the fair market 
prices of the manufacturers and regular dealers in those articles; 
and in one instance, mentioned as coming under the special atten¬ 
tion and recognition of the Clerk, the peculation , under the sof¬ 
tened fallacy of profits , amounted to nearly one hundred per 
cent., exceeding one thousand dollars of public plunder on a 
single article. But as the committee were not a court to try 
these cases criminally , they seem not to have taken any heed of 
the criminal law at all; but rather to regard these and other 
enormities as excusable frivolities, under the palliative terms of 
“negligence,” “inattention,” “carelessness,” &c., &c. Under 
this very idea, in fact, that the committee were not a court , it 
appears they could not compel the attendance of a very import¬ 
ant witness, H. Tyler, to answer interrogatories furnished to the 
chairman by a witness about the 27th of March, ’58, having no 
doubt heard of those interrogatories, and simultaneously left the 
city on that account, and immediately sailed for Cuba “ for his 
health.” Since his return, it appears that his testimony has 
been taken ; but it remains to be seen whether the suggested 
interrogatories were used, or how he evaded them—if by declin¬ 
ing to answer, as he did questions asked him at the Treasury, 
where he bought the books mentioned in his account, and at 
what prices ? 

Small and trivial as the peculations above alluded to may appear 
from the mitigating terms of the aforesaid garbled portion of 
the Report, taken with others claimed by the late Clerk as the 
rightful perquisites of his office, they must have amounted to 
several hundred thousand dollars , if we take the computation 
of Mr. Letcher, in comparing the' expenditures of the late Clerk 
with those of his successor, in a recent speech at Woodstock, in 
opening his canvass for Governor of Virginia. It is well known 
that Mr. Letcher was a prominent member of the Committee of 
Ways and Means of the House during the last Congress, where 
he had ample opportunity to make the estimate of these and all 
other expenditures of the Government. On this occasion he 
said: “ Mr. Cullom, in twenty-two months’ clerkship of the 
House of Representatives, expended $1,600,000, while Mr. Allen, 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


T 

I 


his successor, although he had to meet many extraordinary ex¬ 
penses, including investigating committees, &c., (Cullom’s own 
among the rest,) expended half a million less than his prede¬ 
cessor.” 

If the contingent expenditures for the House under Mr. Allen’s 
administration of its contingent fund were necessarily larger on 
account of “ extraordinary expenses” devolving on him, who can 
imagine what became of the u half million excess” expended by 
the late Clerk, without rationally imputing a very great portion 
of it to the boasted perquisites or peculations of his office ? His 
avowed estimate of them, at $50,000, under the pretence of in¬ 
vestments and speculations in public land, stock, land warrants and 
real estate of all kinds, however flagrantly illegal and forbidden to 
a public officer, would fall far short of the reality of his public 
plunder, according to the estimate or computation of Mr. Letcher’s 
comparison of his and his successors’ expenditures for identical 
objects from the same fund, except those objects that were ille¬ 
gitimate on his part, and those that were extraordinary on the 
part of his successor. 

Besides the ample evidence tendered to the Committee, of 
Cullom’s premeditation to commit these frauds, of which evidence 
some notice will be taken in my next number, the following ex¬ 
tract from the aforesaid portion of the report in question will 
suffice for the present to prove that dearly cherished premedita¬ 
tion % It says : 

“ Witnesses have detailed various statements of the late Clerk respecting the 
profits of his office, among them J. J. Burnett, S S. Stanton, and Hon. Charles 
Ready, who says : Some few days before the adjournment of the last Congress, 
during a night session of the House, lie (the clerk) came and sat down by my 
desk; after some conversation upon different subjects 1 asked him myself, I 
think, what his office would yield him; he stated in substance that he had made 
$30,000, but if the book resolution should pass, his office would be worth, he 
thought, $50,000. 

I give this as the substance of the conversation. That was before the book 
resolution passed. At that or some other time, though my impression is that 
it was at that time, he spoke of having had the advantage, on account of his 
position here, of engaging in some speculations and making some investments 
in stocks and real estate. I do not recollect very distinctly what was said upon 
that subject; the idea was that he had made $30,000 in consequence of holding 
the office.” 

The above is sought to be palliated and justified by the following 
boastful avowal of a person (Mr. McClarin) sent for from Tennes¬ 
see, at considerable public expense, who had nothing to do with 
Cullom’s accounts nor any connection with them, except as an 
apologist for them, by which, however, he and the Committee have 
unwittingly made the matter a great deal worse, unless they 
were so infatuated with a belief in the ignorance of others that 
they might safely make a merit of acknowledging the worst 
possible aspect of these frauds, and that there would be no one 
discerning enough to detect the base coinage, viz: 

“Mr. McClarin, of Carthage, Tennessee, a neighbor and the private financial 


8 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


agent of the late Clerk, says, that ‘ when with his acquaintances at home, he 
spoke of his office as a profitable one, and thought he would make some $30,000 
or $40,000. He explained the matter by saying that there were good opportu¬ 
nities offered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make money by 
dealing in western lands, stocks, land warrants, real estate, &c.; that his posi¬ 
tion gave him credit and increased facilities for information. He was con¬ 
sidered one of our wealthy men. I have been acquainted with General Cullom 
for eighteen or nineteen years, and from the time of my first acquaintance with 
him his wealth has been annually increasing. As he increased in years he increas¬ 
ed in wealth, and latterly the increase has been larger than formerly.’ ” 

In addition to the above statement by Mr. McClarin, it is also 
attempted by the following, likewise extracted from the said re¬ 
port, to confirm those alleged sources of the sudden wealth of the 
late Clerk from speculations and investments in various ways— 
a privilege and abuse expressly forbidden by law to a disbursing 
officer. Suffice it is to say, that the Undersigned furnished the 
Chairman of the Committee with interrogatories, in writing, of a 
totally different character, to propound to Mr. French, touching 
a conversation that Mr, Cullom had with him, showing the late 
Clerk’s premeditation to make large profits out of his office by 
those illegal practices, for he could do it in no other way. If 
those questions were put to Mr. French, they were answered in 
effect, showing that Mr. French made no more than his salary, 
and the percentage allowed him by law; and that Mr. Cullom 
declared his intention (sarcastically, no doubt, as the words im¬ 
ply) to make a great deal more than that. Yet we find here a 
different question propounded to him, for the manifest purpose of 
extracting an answer that might be construed to confirm Mr. 
McClarin’s statement of Cullom’s speculations and investments, 
however in gross violation of law; and yet no evidence is pro¬ 
duced to show what public lands, what stock, or what real estates, 
he had bought with those investments. Nevertheless, Mr. 
French’s answer is as telling a sarcasm on the question, and 
on Cullom’s 'proclivities , as can well be imagined. But it was 
too good a confirmation of Mr. McClarin’s tale to have frightened 
Mr. Cullom and the Chairman of the Committee from its use by 
its inuendo and its sarcasm. Here it is: 

“Mr. French, one of his predecessors in office, on being asked what are the 
opportunities in this city for such a man to realize money by dealing in real 
estate, and taking advantages in buying and selling, says : ‘ I should think, per¬ 
haps , no man could make money faster in any other way.’ ” 

Yet, with these convictions as to Mr. Cullom, Mr. French was 
too faithful a public officer to abuse the public money entrusted 
to him for disbursement, by such illegal, though vastly profitable 
“ investments !” 

I had like to have overlooked in this connection the following 
make-weight of negative evidence resorted to by the Chairman of 
the Committee to exonerate the late Clerk from all “ misfeas¬ 
ance,” “malfeasance,” “corruption,” or “dereliction of duty,” 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


9 


in the face of the abundant 'positive testimony of witnesses ad¬ 
duced before the committee, as hereafter to be cited before the 
Grand Jury. But the overwhelming reply to this “negative 
evidence” of those gentlemen referred to, is, that not one of them 
was in the confidence of Mr. Cullom in his transactions with his 
agents and contractors for furnishing supplies, hence they knew 
nothing of his transactions with those parties to, or cognizants 
of, his frauds. Not even his chief Clerk, Mr. Ingram, who stood 
in the near relation of brother-in-law to him, enjoyed his confi¬ 
dence in these matters, which I am well informed, and can ad¬ 
duce the proof that he, “ Mr. Cullom, took exclusively into his 
own hands,” though the usage of his predecessors towards their 
chief Clerks and other assistant Clerks was entirely different. 
To cite this negative testimony, then, under these circumstances, 
is utterly futile, and not entitled to the weight alleged, viz : 

“ It appears that the late Clerk, on going into office, found several persons of 
standing and experience holding places, -whom he retained in his employ; and 
they are still retained. They have been examined before your committee, and 
without exception testify that they know of no fact tending, either directly or 
indirectly to show misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption, or dereliction of duty 
on the part of the late Clerk. This is negative testimony, indeed, but coming 
from the source it does, is entitled to much weight.”—On the contrary, it is 
strong presumptive evidence against the secret designs of the late Clerk, so ar¬ 
dently cherished by him. 

If the honorable chairman had given that full, thorough , and 
sifting investigation into the conduct and accounts of the late 
Clerk, which he pledged himself to do, before he was appointed 
chairman, although a personal friend of Mr. Cullom, he would 
have found that these gentlemen had no opportunity to know 
anything about the facts which this negative evidence is sought 
to efface. He would even have learned that, upon the bills for 
“ ladies’dressing-cases,” “odor cases,” “ladies’ reticules,” “al¬ 
bums illuminated,” “love albums,” “pruning knives,” “cigar 
cases,” &c., &c., being presented for register, w T hen one of those 
gentlemen remonstrated against these items as irregular, his 
objection was overruled by appeal of the Clerk to the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, who expressed his approbation by saying— 
“ The Clerk can furnish the members with broomsticks if he 
thinks proper.” 

In my next number, 1 will take up the detached references of 
this portion of the report, with the resolutions intended by the 
committee to accompany it, and show, to that extent, the avowed 
frauds committed by the late Clerk, though covered under the 
disguises of paliating terms, as if there were no criminal laws to 
which he is amenable for them. 

R. MAYO, 

For himself and other parties defrauded. 
Washington, March 24, 1859. 


10 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


No. 2. 

I now proceed to review the detailed references made by the re¬ 
port to certain portions of the testimony so selected, probably by 
the Chairman of the Committee, from the great amount of evidence 
taken in the case, as seemed most susceptible, by plastic model¬ 
ings, softened colorings, and other distorting circumstances, of 
making a public impression in extenuation of the offences perpe¬ 
trated against the provisions of the criminal laws by his friend, 
William Cullom, late Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Maynard commences his report with a notice of Mr. Cul- 
lom’s conduct respecting the stationery furnished for the House, 
and by way of extenuating the course of the Clerk at the very 
threshold, makes a feeble effort to throw the small responsibility 
of the advertisement for stationery on certain other persons in 
his office, saying— 

“ With respect to the stationery furnished to the present Congress, it appears 
in proof, that immediately after the close of the last Congress, advertisements 
were prepared in the clerk’s office, by some of the old iucumbents, under the 
personal direction of the clerk, to advertise for the kind and amount of station¬ 
ery that their experience in the office, extending back in some cases nearly ten 
years, showed to be necessary, and he, himself, took no other part in preparing 
the advertisement than merely to give it his official signature.” 

It is certainly a matter of astonishment to all who are acquaint¬ 
ed with the entire responsibility of every officer therefor, who 
affixes his official signature to a public document, whether pre¬ 
pared by subordinates in his office or by himself, that the Chair¬ 
man of the Committee should fall upon so small a circumstance as 
this, with so erroneous an issue too, to betray his eager proclivi¬ 
ty, either from ignorance or personal favor and affection for the 
delinquent, to abate his responsibility for the document to which 
he affixed his official signature ! But still the wonder increases 
at every established fact of the testimony, cited and acknowledged, 
through the whole length of this volumnious report, in which it 
would seem to be the studied purpose of its author to justify, 
extenuate, or excuse every one of those palpable and gross viola¬ 
tions of the criminal law, by characterizing them as mere results 
of “negligence,” “carelessness,” “inattention,” &c., &c., with¬ 
out even seeming to know that there was a violation of law in 
any one instance of the malfeasance, misfeasance, corruption, or 
derelictions of duty recited in the report, and recognized or ad¬ 
verted to in general terms by the “ resolutions” accompanying it, 
though entirely perverted in some instances and partially true or 
untrue in others—for example: 

The first resolution says— 

“ Resolved, That there is nothing connected with advertising proposals, ac¬ 
cepting bids, or selecting or purchasing stationery for the use of the House of 
Representatives, that reflects the slightest discredit upon William Cullom, the 
late clerk.” 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


11 


This is palpably at variance with, and in one particular con¬ 
tradictory to, the testimony of Wm, F. Bayly and the statements 
respecting the same in the report to which the resolutions are 
affixed. The report, after making the insinuations above noticed 
against some of the more experienced clerks in the preparation 
of the advertisement, says— 

“ The stationery furnished is very good, and that the skill and judgment used 
in making the selections have been called in question only in the single article of 
wrapping paper, and that only to the extent of a few cents per ream .” 

The testimony of Wm. F. Bayly states very differently, which 
he has repeated to me since he read the report in the evening 
paper selected for its promulgation. He says substantially, as 
will be seen when the testimony is printed, that— 

“A bid was made to supply the wrapping paper at 9 cents per pound, (not 
per ream,) and that the bid accepted by the clerk, was at 11 cents per pound, 
and for very inferior paper to that offered at 9 cents, making a difference of 
many thousands in the cost of that article alone, which,” he says, “could not 
easily have been forgotten, as a sharp altercation took place between Mr. Cul- 
lom and himself when he was before the committee.” 

The second resolution says— 

“ Resolved , That in the management and disposal of the stationery, great 
abuses have existed; but as these have continued for a series of years, no official 
blame attaches to the late clerk.” 

Here is a palpable non-sequiter , an utter absurdity, as to no 
official blame attaching to the late Clerk for continuing those 
“ great abuses ” which it was his sworn duty to correct. It were 
as rational to declare that the conduct of his predecessors in 
office, however marked with criminal malfeasance, constituted 
proper examples for him to follow ! I need not add the obvious 
remark, that it is well known to every lawyer that when such acts 
amount to felony, the escape of a predecessor does not repeal 
the criminal law as to his successor, or any one else who perpe¬ 
trates the like offences. 

The third resolution says— 

“ Resolved, That negligence and carelessness have been shown in the execution 
of the House resolution of January 30th, 1846, by the said clerk; though there 
is no evidence of either corruption or dishonesty in the premises on the part of 
the late clerk! ” 

It will be perceived that the peculiar phraseology of the latter 
part of this resolution exculpatory of William Cullom, implies 
grave “ corruption or dishonesty ” on the part of others con¬ 
cerned in the execution of the resolution of January, ’46, who, 
by referring to the acts and treasury regulations quoted in the 
preceding Number 1, are jointly responsible as the agents of 
William Cullom, their principal, for all the delinquencies alluded 
to. 

This resolution relates to the same subject of stationery as 
the two preceding ones, but is confined to that branch of it which 


12 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


is devoted to the “custody of the stationery,” upon which the 
report remarks, that— 

“ So far as your committee can perceive, there is no check imposed upon the 
stationery-clerk, or those who temporarily act in his place, and no means of as¬ 
certaining the fidelity with which they execute their trust. It furthermore ap¬ 
pears that a practice had grown up in the office of allowing each of the employees 
to use the office stationery for private purposes to an extent equal to the amount 
allowed by law to each of the members. As it appears to your committee, the 
stationery of the House is in much the same condition as would be a stock of 
merchandize of many thousand dollars sold at retail by sundry different clerks, 
to nearly 250 different customers, each a part proprietor, interested only in re¬ 
ceiving his share of the capital, with no eye to profit—no account of sales kept— 
and no invoice ever taken—the safety of the stock depending alone upon the skill 
and integrity of the factor. The stationery-clerk of the last Congress was an 
old incumbent, and was continued in office by the late clerk in compliance with a 
very numerous and most respectable recommendation. Your committee design 
no reflection upon him ; but they submit, that not only the safety of the officer, 
(the stationery-clerk, of course,) but that of the public property in his care, 
requires that his official conduct shall be subjected, by the clerk, to constant 
revision.” 

This suggestion of a remedy is no more than what was the 
bounden duty of the Clerk to practice in every branch of his 
office, and was entirely superfluous, unless this whole recital was 
intended by Mr. Maynard to divert attention from the turpitude 
of his friend the late Clerk’s official dereliction of duty, by leav¬ 
ing the blame to float between the old stationery clerk, his tem¬ 
porary substitutes, and their 250 customers, and, in that way, 
make scape-goats of them, to divide the greater sins of the late 
Clerk and “ screen his acts from the scrutiny ” promised by the 
chairman on occasion of his appointment in the House. But 
viewed in any aspect, the assumption by this resolution, “ that 
there is no evidence of corruption or dishonesty in the premises, 
on the part of the late Clerk,” is a discrimination between him¬ 
self and his employees and their customers that is not warranted 
by the laws and treasury regulations, for whom his responsibility 
in the premises is paramount. Under this head the report pro¬ 
ceeds to say— 

“ In this connection, your committee deems it proper to call attention to the 
matter of upholstery, furniture, and repairs of the House, furnished by direction 
and authority of the clerk.” 

“By House resolution of January 30, 1846, it is provided, that “all contracts, 
bargains, or agreements relative to the furnishing of any matter or thing, or for 
the performance of any labor for the House of Representatives, be made with 
the clerk, or approved by him, before any allowance therefor shall be made by 
the committee of accounts.” The disbursements for upholstery, furniture, and 
repairs amount, annually, to many thousand dollars. 

The practice of the office appears to be to employ some tradesman, who sup¬ 
plies everything of the kind that is required, either by the committees or other¬ 
wise, without any special contract or agreement as to prices, who submits his ac¬ 
count to the committee of accounts, which, when approved by the committee, 
is paid by the clerk. 

During the last Congress three different persons were employed, [by the late 
clerk,] whose evidence before the committee [their names not mentioned, though 
important to prevent dodging,] shows that, upon the articles furnished by them, 
they realized a profit of from 25 to 33^ per cent., which, they say, “is no more 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


13 


than they charge private persons for similar supplies.” Certain it is, that the 
aggregate of profits is very considerable, and does not seem to be attended with 
corresponding benefits to the government.” 

These evasions of the accountability of the late Clerk for the 
acts of his agents, according to laws and treasury regulations 
before quoted, seem to be very convenient to the Chairman of 
the Committee, on all suitable occasions,thereby leaving everybody 
who knows no better to suppose that his friend Cullom had 
nothing to do with the conduct of his agents. And, in the same 
spirit, here the report goes on to give several “examples” to 
illustrate the “ working of this system,” by which, in one particular 
instance mentioned, the recognition of it by the Clerk is set forth 
with utter nonchalance , as if he owed no responsibility whatever for 
it. In this case, it appears there was some contention between 
two persons, who claimed the right to furnish and put down the 
carpet for the new Hall of the House and its galleries. For 
this identical carpet the successful contestant charged, and was 
paid, about 100 per cent, more than the defeated party had 
charged for it, before the preference was conceded to his com¬ 
petitor by the decision of the Clerk; and by that transfer of the 
job, the successful contestant made a profit of more than $1,000 
on this single item. But I conclude to give this statement of 
the report entire. It says: 

“ For example : it appears from the late clerk’s report that for furniture, &c., 
in the committee room on Public Buildings and Grounds, ordered by that com¬ 
mittee, was expended $1,439.25, and in like manner in the committee room on 
Expenditures of the Navy Department, $857.50; and in the committee room on 
Expenses of Post Office and Treasury Departments, $633.25. But a more strik¬ 
ing instance of the working of the system is found in furnishing the carpets 
and cushions of the new hall. The superintendent engaged upon the Capitol 
extension, supposing that this fell within his province, had selected a carpet in 
this city at the price of $1.25 per yard laid down; but was informed by the 
clerk that he considered this as a part of his official duty under the resolution 
already referred to. In this view he was undoubtedly correct, and the super¬ 
intendent very cheerfully and gladly acquiesced in it. 

“ He wrote the clerk, giving him some suggestions about the matter, and the 
clerk addressed a note to the tradesman employed, as general furnisher, au¬ 
thorizing him ‘ to do such upholstery and other work in the new Hall of the 
House of Representatives and its galleries as Capt. Meigs might designate and 
direct.’ 

“Under this authority, he proceeded and procured the identical carpet se¬ 
lected by the superintendent, laid it down, and presented to the Committee of 
Accounts a bill at two dollars per yard, and twenty-five cents for laying it down, 
making a profit of nearly $1,000 on the single item. 

“ It is proper to add, that the testimony shows that these profits, considera¬ 
ble as they appear, were enjoyed by the tradesman alone, neither the clerk nor 
any of his subordinates participating in them ; and in the matter of the carpet 
it appears that the clerk personally had no other connection with it than to give 
the order in the manner stated, having one of his subordinates to supervise the 
laying it down according to the wishes of the Superintendent.” 

To imagine the profits of all this furnishing in gross, from 25 
to 100 per-cent, would require much elasticity of conception, as 
well as great faith in the oath of the interested parties, who ex. 


14 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASK. 


culpate one another and the Clerk from any collusion or par¬ 
ticipation in them except what they would have the committee and 
the public believe were their rightful profits, in which they 
would have done well to have consulted the law and common 
sense ; and the author of the report, seeming utterly confounded 
thereat, from his labored effort to explain the whole matter, 
never bethought himself of the legal view of the Clerk’s responsi¬ 
bility, conjointly with the rest, for all of these infractions of the 
criminal law touching such agencies. The ordinary idea that 
great abuses are destined to cure themselves, will not apply to 
the inordinate craving for public plunder which has of late 
become so contagious at the seat of government. That is an ex¬ 
ception to the rule. Once imbibed, it so contaminates every 
fibre of the human system, every moral restraint of the once 
virgin conscience, that the actual cautery, the branding iron 
itself, to the forehead would not expurgate it. The law there¬ 
fore contemplates no other remedy for this felonious proclivity 
short of the practical, the physical restraint of that personal en¬ 
largement which admits the possibility of its continued indulgence. 

The fourth resolution says : 

“ Resolved , That negligence and inattention have been shown by the late Clerk 
in the execution of the resolution of July 7, 1856, and the act of March 
3, 1857.” 

The testimony given before the committee, when published, 
will show whether this negligence and inattention of the late 
Clerk was not connected with the frauds jointly practiced by 
himself and his agent, II. Tyler, on the Treasury and individ¬ 
uals in their account, for their alleged purchase and supply of 
books alluded to only in general terms in this resolution. But 
the next resolution (the fifth and last) is more specific, and 
opens up everything that might be said under this head. 

Moreover, after the repeated avowals of premeditated 
public plunder—for it can be called by no other name—as is 
plainly to be inferred from the testimony of several witnesses 
quoted from the report in the latter part of the preceding num¬ 
ber, and specifically set forth by testimony otherwise adduced to 
the committee, in his boastful declaration to B. B. French, esq’r, 
that he “ would make a great deal more than his salary and the 
percentage allowed by law,” and his statement to 0. II. Morrison, 
esq., that he “ was entitled to all he could make from the perqui¬ 
sites of his office,” which had no perquisites, and by his fraudu¬ 
lent purpose evinced throughout the testimony in the case laid 
before the accounting officers of the Treasury, as well as before 
the committee of investigation in the same documents—all taken 
into consideration with the zeal manifested by the Chairman of 
the Committee in hunting up negative testimony of exculpation, in 
the face of positive testimony of crimination, it is impossible to be- 


REVIEW OP WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


15 


lieve that “such a man” as William Cullom, so determined in his 
purpose, did not avail himself of all these opportune occasions to 
accomplish his avowed intentions. 

The fifth and last resolution runs thus: 

“ Resolved , That in the settlement of his accounts at the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment for the purchase and delivery of books to certain members of the 34th 
Congress, under the resolution of July 7, 1856, the Clerk certified to the pur¬ 
chase and delivery of two sets of books which were not, in fact , delivered, but 
money, in whole or in part, had been taken in lieu thereof: and a custom is 
proved to have previously existed of exchanging books for money; and in two 
instances of the receipts filed by the late Clerk, the money has been paid at the 
special instance of the members themselves.” 

Here is an explicit declaration and exposure by the commit¬ 
tee, of two instances impugning the veracity of the late Clerk, 
in certifying that he had delivered these books; and there may 
have been other instances, besides a third one, the Hon. John 
Williams, whose testimony is quoted below, inasmuch as all the 
twenty-one members do not appear to have been examined ; but 
one only of those mentioned would have been sufficient to estab¬ 
lish the embezzlement, to that extent, of the money avowed 
to have been divided by the Clerk, retaining part to his own use ; 
though it is not presumable he could have done so with all the 
new* members, nor even will all the tw T enty-one who signed 
receipts, as there must have been many who entertained other 
views on the subject. But it would appear from the testimony 
of Mr. Williams, that the plan of the Clerk was, to address to 
members—probably to all those entitled to the books—blank 
receipts for their signature without dates, and without the de¬ 
livery of the books. In confirmation of such probability, it will 
suffice to quote the testimony of Mr. Williams from the said re¬ 
port of the committee, viz : 

“ Hon. John Williams, of New York, testifies in substance, that on the 5th of 
March, 1857, one of his colleagues undertook to procure for him his books, and 
to have them sent to him ; that he signed a receipt at Willards’ Hotel and en¬ 
veloped it to the Clerk ; made no examination of the receipt, and remembers 
nothing of its contents; finds the same receipt on file in the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment, dated July 15, 1856; had no interview or communication with the Clerk; 
gave no directions, and made no provisions for the freight of his books, and 
had not received them, but had been assured by the Clerk on the morning he 
gave his testimony, which was the first time he saw him, that the books were 
awaiting his orders. No money was received or proffered to be received by 
him.” 

Here is a full and positive disclosure of a receipt sent by the 
late Clerk to Mr. Williams for his signature, bearing a date near¬ 
ly a year before it was signed, and placed on file in the treasury 
by Mr. Cullom, as a voucher for one set of books, amounting to 
over §1,000, as having been paid for to his agent H. Tyler, and 
delivered to Mr. Williams among the 21 members, according to a 
list certified by said Cullom. Mr. Williams’ name is the second 
on that list, which is false in every aspect, according to the testi- 


16 


REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM’S CASE. 


mony of Mr. Williams and the avowal of the late Clerk; and 
the amount charged in his account for the books and placed to 
his credit at the treasury was a clear embezzlement to the extent 
of one set of the books. Whether these books were ever delivered 
afterwards, and the money repaid into the treasury after Mr. 
Williams’ testimony, when neither had been done, is not mate¬ 
rial to the fact of falsifying the accounts for books and the cer¬ 
tificate of their delivery, as in the two other instances. So much 
for the proposed review and comparison of the report and the 
resolutions appended to it. 

The report, however, goes on to state under this head that the 
1st Auditor, on the 3d of August, 1857, certifies that “the rates 
charged for the books in this account have been compared v T ith 
prior accounts, and have in no case been found to exceed the 
prices heretofore paid for them.” Grant it—but there was an¬ 
other question necessary to ascertain the equity and the honesty 
of the transaction between Mr. Cuilom and his agent II. Tyler, 
viz: Whether Tyler, the agent, paid the prices for the books 
which he charged to Cuilom, his principal ? This question v r as 
propounded to Tyler at the treasury, and he declined to answer 
it. This refusal was an avowal that he speculated on his princi¬ 
pal, which was an infraction of the law and treasury regulations, 
for which they are both amenable. See the law and regulations 
before quoted in No. 1. 

The other portions of the said report of Mr. Maynard are ob¬ 
noxious to similar objections, on account of the distortions of some 
facts and suppression of others in the same connection, as is 
evinced in the perverted use made of the testimony of Robert K. 
Elliott, for example, and on account of the omissions to notice 
much of the most important testimony, such as that of Mr. 
Whittlesey, Mr. Rives, William F. Bayly, V. Blanchard, Wm. 
Pettibone, John Alexander, and many others. But nevertheless, 
the avowals of the report in regard to the conduct of William 
Cuilom, and his agent, H. Tyler, towards Mr. Seaton and Mr. 
Tretler, and the exactions or extortions of the agent Tyler from 
each of them, as if insensible of their felonious character, are 
admissions of guilt , involving both principal and agent, that can¬ 
not always evade the scrutiny of the law, though temporarily 
hoodwinked by the artifices and special pleadings of a report of 
a committee ; nor can the numerous other evidences of guilt here 
denuded be longer blinked by the same means. 

But I will defer further comment thereon, until the testimony 
taken by the committee shall be printed by the public printer, 
when these comments will be rendered still more obvious, and the 
discrepancies noted will probably be much more numerous. 

R. MAYO, 

For himself and other parties defrauded. 
Washington, March 24, 1859. 


EXPOSITION 


OF A 

Third Attempt to Deceive the Public in this Case. 


Whilst awaiting the promised forthcoming of the “ Testimony” from the press 
of the Public Printer, I am constrained to notice a third artful elfort to abuse 
public opinion in the case of William Cullom, which appeared in his wonted 
channel, the Evening Star of the 4th instant, in the form of a short paragraph, 
under the attractive caption of “Washington News and Gossip,” to which my 
attention has been called by a friend. From the position which I occupy— 
unsought for by me, but steadily and unflinchingly maintained since it h as been 
thrust upon me by the presentation of the fraudulent account of William Cul¬ 
lom against the Treasury for alleged purchases and delivery of books, &c., by 
which I was a great sufferer—it is due to the public, it is due to consistency, it 
is due to truth, and especially is it due to the Grand Juries of this Metropolis, 
and to all who set their countenances against public plunderers and their apolo¬ 
gists here or elsewhere, that I expose the false statements recklessly set forth 
in that paragraph. In speaking of the presentments just made of “ Messrs Cul¬ 
lom, Seaman, and Duval,” that paragraph takes occasion to hazard the following 
preversions of the truth. It says : 

“ In the case of Mr. Cullom, THREE previous Grand Juries had investigated 
the allegations against him, without being able to find aught in the alleged 
testimony criminating him. TWO select Committees of the House of Represent¬ 
atives have also duly considered the same evidence, and the result of their in¬ 
vestigations was his exoneration from the suspicion of dealing dishonestly with 
his trust as Clerk of the House of Representatives. The action of the present 
Grand Jury in the matter has therefore surprised all here except those person¬ 
ally familiar with the pertinacity with which he has been pursued by two or 
three personal enemies before the Congressional Committees and Grand Juries.” 

There is not a material word of truth in the statement above quoted. 

I. It is not true that “ three previous Grand Juries had investigated the al¬ 
legations against William Cullom. 

1. Th q first Grand Jury alluded to, did not investigate one-half or one-fourth 
of the charges since developed and laid before the present Grand Jury. The 
charges before the first Grand Jury were confined chiefly to the speculations in 
books ordered for the new members of the 34th Congress, and the binding of 
public documents.- But from some irregularities incident to secret proceedings, 
as I have understood, the testimony establishing these frauds failed to have a 
majority for a presentment, if the sense of the jury was taken at all. 

2. The second Grand Jury alluded to, only made a partial investigation of 
the same charges, and perhaps a few others that were brought before it: but 
from causes and rumors rife at the time, the case was deferred , as is evident 
from the papers returned to me, without taking the sense of the jury. 

3. The third Grand Jury alluded to, did not take up the subject at all, though 
communicated to the foreman in a much greater development of specifications 
than it had been to either of the preceding juries, or both of them together, as 
the documents in the case will fully show. 

II. It is not true that “ two select Committees of the House of Representa¬ 
tives have also duly considered the same evidence.” 

1. There has been but one Committee of the House on the subject. The 
mere allegation that there had been two Committees would of itself imply that 


o 


EXPOSITION. 


there had been some grevious misconduct on which the assumed first committee 
had not been able to make a satisfactory report, thereby requiring a second 
committee to be appointed, which, was not done—nor was there time to do so, as 
the sole committee that had charge of it exhausted both sessions, and made its 
report at the heel of the last session, too late even to have it read in the 
House. 

2. And so far from the investigations of the Committee that had charge of 
the subject, “having exonerated the late Clerk from the suspicion of dealing dis¬ 
honestly with his trust as Clerk of the House,” the testimony taken by the Com¬ 
mittee has established every charge, and many other accessory developments 
made before it, in despite of the disguises attempted to be thrown over them, 
and the siren tones chanted around them by the Chairman of that Committee, 
to mollify and soften their atrocious character, as will be fully seen when the 
testimony is printed, and to some considerable extent in the mean time, by re¬ 
ferring to my review of Mr. Maynard’s report, which may be found at the book¬ 
stores for free distribution. 

The insinuated charge of malice made in the next passage -of said paragraph . 
is utterly ridiculous in its seeming allusion to the undersigned, and I presume 
it is equally so in regard to all others alluded to by its author, who, I should 
opine, can be no other but Mr. Cullom himself. It says: 

“ He doubtless rejoices that they have at last accomplished as much as they 
have, in the belief that the result will be a public trial, in which he will be able 
to show that malice towards himself, rather than a just regard for the public 
interest, is at the bottom of the course of his accusers.” 

In regard to this insinuation, I will only say at present, that I had-* no ac¬ 
quaintance whatever with Mr. Cullom, notwithstanding some prepossessions, 
politically, in his favor, until his premeditated fraudulent purposes to injure the 
publishers of the books ordered by the House resolution of July 7, 1856, began 
to manifest themselves by his acts, of which one, among others too numerous to 
mention here—that of procuring to be stricken out or omitted from the reso¬ 
lution the customary proviso requiring the books to be supplied by the pub¬ 
lishers, of which he made his boast, and declared he would make a profit of 
$20,000 by the passage of that resolution—which amounted to a deliberate malice 
against our property and vested interest in the right to supply the books, 
viewed in a moral sense at least, if not actionable at law for damages. And 
even after these acts of malicious intent and premeditated frauds, I have in my 
possession written evidence of my manifestation of forbearance towards him, 
until his frauds upon the publishers, the Congressional districts, and the Treas¬ 
ury of the United States, were about being consummated by his account with 
Hugh Tyler, presented at the Treasury as a voucher for payment, when I imme¬ 
diately entered a caveat against its settlement or allowance, and proffered evi¬ 
dences of its fraudulent character; which has been since proved to some ex¬ 
tent before the committee of investigation. True I resisted all proffers or 
suggestions to withdraw those charges, because “ I considered such an act 
would place me in the attitude of an accessory to Cullom's escape from justice; 
which position I would not occupy for all the money in the Treasury.” The 
evidences of these facts may be adduced to the public hereafter. 

Another passage of said paragraph admits the possibility of proving those 
charges, but, with a strange infatuation, relies upon an assertion it makes, that 
“ there exists no law, the provisions of which make what they charge against 
him, if proved, an offence punishable at law.” 

That such a delusion as this should have prompted the late Clerk to his 
reckless course of peculations and frauds, is truly astonishing—but temptation, 
under the hope of eluding detection, is, in all probability, the true solution of 
the enigma. 


April 6th, 1859. 


11. MAYO. 


APPENDIX. 


-- 

TESTIMONY. 


Review of the Report and Testimony in several Sections* 

Section 1. 

The want of an Index amounts to a suppression of this important document. 

April 10 ih, 1859. 

I have just procured a copy of the officially printed Report and Testimony in 
this case. It is a ponderous production, being an octavo volume of 551 pages. 
It is not signed by any member of the committee. It contains the testimony of 
eighty or ninety witnesses, under oath administered by the Chairman, the Hon. 
Horace Maynard, generally without the date of their examination. On open¬ 
ing it, it presents the appearance of a mass of confusion, which is not relieved 
by the closest inspection, being without any index or other means of ascertain¬ 
ing the names or number of the witnesses than by turning over the pages leaf 
by leaf, to make a count and note their names: nor yet is there any way of 
ascertaining any particular matter of evidence, or by whom given, without 
reading the volume regularly from the beginning until you come to it; which 
may be at the outset, at the middle, or at the end, or any where between those 
points—unless you should be fortunate enough to fall on the subject of your 
search by accidently opening the volume at its hidden whereabouts ; and then, 
if you do not immediately make a memorandum, you may never be able to find 
it again—all of which would amount to a suppression of this important docu¬ 
ment if not in some way brought out of the darkness that confounds it. For 
any satisfactory purpose of estimating the general and particular character of 
the testimony, and by whom given, I have found it necessary to read the principal 
part of the whole volume and the testimony of every witness, in order to throw 
that which is of any value into some intelligible arrangement, which I propose 
to do by sections. 

Section 2. 

Evidence of premeditated frauds and peculation, and their modes of concealment. 

I have said in the foregoing “review” and exposition of the effort to make a 
false impression on the public mind in this case, which appeared in the Star 
of the 1st March, that the late Clerk premeditated frauds on the publishers, 
&c. Before noticing any other portions of the Testimony, I proceed to sub¬ 
stantiate this premeditation of frauds, not only on the publishers, but on con¬ 
tractors and others in almost every department of the Clerk’s official trust, by 
citing pertinent portions of the evidence, with references to the names of the 
witnesses and the pages of the Report. 




4 


APPENDIX. 


There were various modes adopted by Mr. Cullom, of making the impression on 
his friends in Congress before his election, doubtless by way of persuading 
them to use their influence in securing his election as Clerk of the House, by 
alleging that there were great profits accruing to the office, such as “fees” 
“perquisites ,” “emoluments,” “according to law,” and “outside of the duties 
of the Clerk,” which it was his duty to know did not exist, but might conceal 
his premeditation of practicing these frauds and peculations. In evidence of 
this I quote the following from the testimony of the Hon. F. K. ZollicofFer.—See 
Report, p. 516. 

F. K. Zollicoffer called and sworn. 

“ Question by the Chairman. Were you a member of the last Congress, and 
from what State ? 

“Answer. I was a member of the last Congress from the State of Tennessee. 

Question. Have you ever had any conversation with the Clerk, or been pres¬ 
ent at any conversation at any time, in which the Clerk made any admissions 
with respect to the income, profits, or emoluments of his office ? 

“Answer. I recollect that in conversation with him or with others, I received 
the impression that the profits of his office were good. I remember to have 
had the impression made upon my mind that his office was one that paid well. But 
what the pay amounted to I did not know. My idea was that the perquisites of 
the office, added to the salary, made it valuable. But what the profits amounted 
to I had no definite idea. 

“ Question. Can you state any specific conversation in regard to this matter, 
or only an impression merely of a general character ? 

“Answer. All that I distinctly remember is an impression made upon my mind 
that the office was a good one. But I never took the pains to look into the 
laws to see how the profits arose. 

“ Question. From his conversation did you learn in what way, or by what 
particular mode, he expected to make these profits ? 

“ Answer. I did not. I took no pains to ascertain, and did not ascertain, 
how the profits were to be realized. All the idea I had about the matter was 
that the profits were to come from the perquisites, but I did not understand very 
definitely how that was. 

“ Question. What were your personal relations to the Clerk, your opportun¬ 
ities for conversing and associating with him ? 

“Answer. We were familiar friends, personally and politically, and were fre¬ 
quently thrown together; not so frequently, however, while he was Clerk as 
when we were members of Congress together, for we then roomed and boarded 
together for some time, When he was elected Clerk his business called him in 
one direction, and mine called me in another, and we were not so frequently 
thrown together, though we continued familiar friends. 

“ Question by Mr. Ricaud. Was it your impression that the office was remune¬ 
rative from the salary and the legal perquisites of the office, or from malfeasance 
or misfeasance on the part of the Clerk ? 

“ Answer. My impression was that the Clerk’s profits arose from his emolu¬ 
ments under the law . I took not the slightest pains at any time to look into the 
sources of those profits, to see what the law was; but I suppose that the pat¬ 
ronage belonging to the office, and the commissions and fees allowed to the 
Clerk under different acts of Congress, yielded a large profit to the holder of 
the office. 

“Question. Then you understand the office to be a profitable one in conse¬ 
quence of fees allowed by law, rather than by means of any corruption in the office? 

“ Answer. I do not know that I ever thought about the matter sufficiently 
definitely to endeavor to analyze, in my own mind, the process by which these 
profits were to accrue. 

“ Question by Mr. Horton. Was this impression made upon your mind from 
conversations with Mr. Cullom ? 


APPENDIX. 


5 


“Answer. I presume it was from conversations with him and others. I sup¬ 
pose it resulted from my intercourse generally with members and with him. 
But I have no recollection of any specific, distinct, definite conversation with 
him upon the subject. It was a matter about which I cared nothing, and to 
which I paid no attention; but there was left upon my mind an impression that 
the profits of the office were large, or handsome. 

“ Question by Mr. Curry. Did you understand that there were profits outside 
of the regular salary ? 

“Answer. Yes, sir; that was my impression. I had heard that there was 
a fixed salary, and that there were perquisites from other sources legitimately 
accruing to the holder of the office under the law. I had heard, but do not now 
recollect, what the fixed salary was. I remember to have received the impres¬ 
sion, I think while Colonel Forney was Clerk, that a profit was to be made out 
of the sale of books. I remember to have received that impression, from what 
source I do not now recollect. I recollect that I had a sort of surmise in my 
mind, it was a mere surmise, that General Cullom was making that profit, what¬ 
ever it was. But I had no knowledge of the facts, and took not the slightest 
pains to ascertain, and I never knew anything about whether he received his 
profits from that source or not. But I had the impression made upon my mind 
that that was a thing, if it was so, that grew out of the law as it stood. But 
I know nothing about it. 

F. K. ZOLLICOFFER. 

May 24, 1858.” 

The above, which is the chief part of the testimony of Mr. Zollicoffer, throws 
a flood of light on the whole subject of fees , perquisites , and other emoluments 
of the Clerk’s office, carefully and assiduously impressed on members as growing 
out of “ provisions of law,” without examining the laws to see that there exists 
no such provisions, but express inhibitions of law. Such impressions of 
of members go far to account for the great facilities of the late Clerk in prac¬ 
ticing these frauds, not only on the members themselves, but on almost every 
department of his office. Under these developments of the premeditations of 
Mr. Cullom, both before and immediately after his election to the clerkship, 
it cannot be supposed that he did not most diligently execute his purpose by every 
opportunity that occurred under anything like safe concealments of the facts, 
showing, at the same time, his consciousness of “misfeasance,” “malfeasance,” 
“ corruption,” and “ dereliction of duty ?” His zeal, however, was too 
reckless to avoid many discoveries, as will appear by the references to be given 
in section 3. 

I make the following extract from the testimony of B. B. French, Esq., who 
was, formerly, Clerk of the House of Representatives—dated January 26, 1859, 
page 528. 

“Benjamin B. French called and examined. 

“ Question by the Chairman. Have you ever had any conversation with Wil¬ 
liam Cullom, late Clerk of the House of Representatives, respecting the profits, 
or the means of making money out of the office of Clerk of the House ? 

“Answer. I will state all the conversation I ever had with Mr. Cullom on that 
subject; all the words that ever passed between us. I went into the Clerk’s 
office soon after Mr. Cullom was elected ; and, in the course of conversation, 
Mr. Cullom remarked to me, in his off-hand way, ‘ French, how much did you 
make out of the office of Clerk of the House ?’ I replied that ‘ I made precisely 
my salary, and what the House chose to give me as extra compensation by a 
vote of the House; that that was all I ever made.’ ‘Oh,’ said he, ‘you made 
more than that; don’t tell me.’ I said, ‘ No, general, I never made more than 


6 


APPENDIX. 


that.’ ‘Well,’ said he, in his laughing way, ‘ I intend to make more out of 
the office than that.’ Perhaps he may have said, for he used such language at 
times, ‘I intend to make more than that, by God.’ That was all the conver¬ 
sation that passed between us upon that point. 

“Question by the Chairman. When did this conversation occur ? 

“Answer. Very soon^after General Cullom was elected Clerk, I went into the 
office, as I always have doi^ when a new Clerk was elected, and congratulate 
the incumbent upon his election, and talk over matters in relation to the clerk¬ 
ship. 

[The following are added as examples which Mr. Cullom would have found safety in pursuing, 
^instead of practicing peculations and frauds under the garb of fees and perquisites of his office, 
of which there were none.] 

“ Question by Mr. Curry. Did you have any general agent while you were 
Clerk, to purchase articles which were to be paid for out of the contingent 
fund ? 

“Answer. Never; I purchased them myself—everything. You know, of 
course, I had to make contracts ; after the contract law passed I advertised for 
proposals. 

“ Question by Mr. Curry. You had no intermediate agent between you and 
those of whom you purchased ? 

“ Answer. No, sir. 

“ Question by Mr. Curry. No person was allowed to make profits ? 

“Answer. No sir. The moment an appropriation was made to purchase books 
under some resolution, I sat down and wrote letters to every bookseller in 
Washington who I supposed could furnish books, and to all the publishers of 
the books called for. 

“ Question by Mr. Horton. Was the same course generally pursued by you 
in reference to articles paid for out of the contingent fund ? 

“Answer. Always; I always purchased everything myself, or through my 
clerks who were under me. I was responsible for them. I never had any 
agent, or any person between me and the contractor; never, in any way. 

“ Question by Mr. Horton. Then the prices paid by you for articles were 
the prices charged by the dealer himself ? 

“Answer. Yes, sir; I never made a charge different from the amount I paid 
out.” 

The following extract is from the testimony of the Hon. Charles Ready, mem¬ 
ber of the 33d and 34th Congresses, from Tennessee.—See Report, page 513. 

“Question by Mr. Maynard. Had you any conversation with the Clerk, or 
were you present at any conversation with him in which he made any admis¬ 
sion as to the business of his office, its profits or emoluments ? 

“ Answer. The only conversation I remember to have had with the Clerk with 
reference to the business of his office or its emoluments was some few days 
before the adjournment of the last session of the last Congress. During the 
night session of the House he came and sat down by my desk. After some con¬ 
versation upon different subjects, I asked him myself, I think, what his office 
would yield him. I had heard something said about the profits of his office. 
He stated, in substance, that he had made $30,000; but if the book resolu¬ 
tion should pass, his office would be worth, he thought, $50,000. I give it as 
the substance of the conversation. That was before the book resolution passed. 

“At that or some other time—though my impression is that it was at that 
time—he spoke of having had the advantage, on account of his position here, of 
engaging in some speculations and making some investments in stocks and real 
estate. I do not very distinctly remember what was said upon that subject.” 

The following extract is taken from the testimony of W. W. Seaton, Esq.— 
page 308 of the Report. 

“Soon after the passage of the resolution of the 7th of July,1856, [the book reso- 


APPENDIX. 


i 


lution,] I sent our head man in our binding establishment, Mr. Deeble, to ask Gen¬ 
eral Cullom, as the resolution had passed, whether he would give an order for those 
books, because they constituted property of great value, were deposited in a com¬ 
bustible building, and we had to pay a high insurance upon them, which our 
creditor required of us, because the payment of our debt to him was secured by 
a lien on those books. I wished to deposit the books in a place of safety—in 
the Capitol—not expecting payment at that time, because there was no ap¬ 
propriation to pay for them. But, as Mr. Deeble reported to me, General Cul¬ 
lom answered, that, though the resolution had passed, he had not taken the 
matter into consideration, and, at any rate, he would not take any step or give 
any order until Congress had made an appropriation to enable him to execute 
the resolution, &c., &c. Mr. Deeble reported to me that Mr. Cullom said, also, 
that he did not know, when he got the money, what he should do in executing 
the order; that if he did get the money he did not know what number of books he 
should want, and that there were some preliminaries to be settled before he gave an 
order. That answer partly induced me to suppose that there was an understand¬ 
ing between Mr. Tyler and Mr. Cullom, &c.” 

An extract from the affidavit of Mr. Moore, of the Intelligencer Office, 
March 7, 1857. See report, pages 145 and 140. 

“About an hour ago, at the request of Messrs. Gales & Seaton, I called at 
the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the Capitol, to see 
Mr. Cullom. Found him in his room examining letters. I stated that I had 
called, at the request of Messrs, (rales & Seaton, to inform him that their books 
were ready for delivery, and that, having observed that an appropriation for the 
books had been made, they would be pleased to receive an order for them. .Mr. 
Cullom stated that he would give an order at his convenience and pleasure; 
that he was much pressed with business of all kinds, had been much troubled 
by those interested in the books, and was, besides, greatly harassed in settling 
the accounts of members. The indefinite nature of this reply led me to remark 
that I supposed an order for Messrs. Gales & Seaton’s books would be given in 
due time as a matter of course. To this Mr. Cullom replied in the negative, 
stating that an order would not be given as a matter of course, but at his pleas¬ 
ure, if he should ascertain that he wanted the books; that the law directed 
him to furnish the books, and did not require him to purchase them of their 
respective publishers; that these publishers had endeavored to monopolize the 
sale of their several works, and on this point had been fighting against him for 
a year, and he had finally gained the victory; that the law passed in a form 
which imposed no restraint as to the source whence the books were to be pro¬ 
cured ; that he had already provided for a part of them, &c.” 

The following is taken from the affidavit of R. Mayo, dated 17 July, 1857— 
page 130 of the Report: 

“I also, with other publishers, in the coui’se of these efforts to obtain our 
right to supply our respective quotas of books, became acquainted with various 
other official malfeasances of Mr. Cullom, in the performance of his duties as 
disbursing agent of the House of Representatives, all going to demonstrate 
and establish the fact of a predetermination and settled purpose, on his part, from 
the time he came into the office of Clerk of the House, to amass and desecrate 
to his own use a very large amount of the public money passing, and likely to pass, 
through his hands, as well as by peculations and exactions on contractors for 
various jobs of binding and miscellaneous supplies. And at last, when it un¬ 
expectedly became known to me, within a few days past, that William Cullom 
had presented an account for books alleged to have been “ furnished” by Hugh 
Tyler, who is not a “bookseller,” and even if he were a bookseller, could have 
had no opportunities to procure those books except from the publishers, of 
whom he did not procure them, and as it was impossible he could have procured 


8 


APPENDIX. 


a very great proportion of them from any source, as they were out of print, 
unless they have been fraudulently withheld from distribution to Congressional 
districts on former occasions, for the purpose of being fraudulently sold again 
and again, without being sent to their destination contemplated by the periodi¬ 
cal appropriations for books, I denounced it. 

“ Another fact that speaks strongly to denounce the fraudulent character and 
intent of this transaction on the part of said Cullom is, that he omitted to 
claim the other portion of the $50,000 indemnity appropriated to reimburse his 
alleged expenditure in the purchase of those books before any appropriation 
had been made to authorize it; which reimbursement he might have claimed at 
the same time, under this gratuitous appropriation, assuming his alleged outlay 
to be true ! But not claiming the complement of the $50,000, is a clear ac¬ 
knowledgment that he had not actually made the outlay he alleged to the Com¬ 
mittee of Ways and Means in order to obtain the appropriation. Or even to 
allege (if, indeed, such was his intention) that he intended or intends to present 
another account for the balance as having been paid to some other person for 
other books, would but increase the obvious want of integrity in the entire as¬ 
pect of the subject, which would make it necessary for him to verify his statement 
to the committee before he could properly receive any portion of the indemnity 
based on its supposed truth. And it is my firm belief that all these recitals 
commend their consideration to the Accounting Officers of the Treasury as 
throwing essential light on the fraudulent character of the said account, which 
has been so artfully concocted and brought forward, as almost to elude ordinary 
scrutiny, under the courtesy of taking upon trust, or with many grains of al¬ 
lowance, an account wearing the imposing garb of authority.” 


The following is Mr. Deeble’s statement to the Auditor.—See Report, page 143. 


“Washington, August 3, 1857. 

“ In compliance with a request in writing from the First Auditor of the 
Treasury Department, dated on the 1st instant, I would beg leave to say, that 
on or about the 20th of July, 1856, I called at the request of Messrs. Gales & 
Seaton, on Mr. Cullom, Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United 
States, for the purpose of obtaining an order for the books for the use of the 
members of the House of Representatives, which he had been directed to pro¬ 
cure ; to which he replied, I have not given it a thought yet, nor will I act in 
the matter until the appropriation is made to pay for them, and then the order 
will be given for any quantity I may want; I will not take the least responsi¬ 
bility ; when the appropriation is made, I will act, and not before. 

“And on the 9th of April, 1857, I called at the House of Representatives, on 
business connected with the said books, and was informed by a messenger 
of the Clerk that no books of the kind had been brought to the House except 
those ninety sets which I had delivered under the Clerk’s order of March 26th, 
1857. 


“ Respectfully, 

“ T L. Smith, Esq., First Auditor's Office. 

“ Sworn to before— 


EDWARD DEEBLE. 
THOMAS DONOHO, J. P.” 


Here the prevarications, contradictions, and inconsistencies of Mr. Cullom 
are very strongly marked. Mr. Deeble is at one moment led to suppose that he 
will take the books—at another, that he will not take them; again, that he 
will take them in some quantities, doubtful what; and then he throws up all 
commitment until the appropriation is made ! Now, mark the covert falsities 
throughout, crowded into these few words ! At this very moment, when Mr. 
Cullom “had not given the subject a thought yet,” he was purchasing “the 


APPENDIX. 


9 


right of members to books/' or “ the books for members,” according to his ac¬ 
count and vouchers, 21 in number; and had already purchased three or four 
sets complete—as his vouchers for catalogues would have it—and went on to 
make all the purchases he could effect, ( constructive or real,) consisting of twenty- 
iour sets only, in one month; and it does not appear from his account and 
vouchers that he was able to purchase more, or even make the show of doing so 
afterwards, to redeem his statement of having expended $50,000, or that 
$50,000 would cover his liabilities in the purchase of books for members, under 
the resolution of July 7, 1856, in order to prevail on the Committee of Ways 
and Means, at the next session subsequent to those purchases of twenty-four 
sets, amounting only to $25,880 40, to recommend the appropriation of the 
$50,000 as indemnity therefor.—See statement of the Hon. Lewis D. Camp¬ 
bell, at page 503 of the Report. 


Section 3. 

The premeditation of frauds and peculations, by Wm. Cullom, consummated in 

numerous instances. 

I will now, in this section, recite the evidences of the consummation of the frauds 
and peedmtions set forth in the preceding section as premeditated by Wm. Cul¬ 
lom, late Clerk of the House of Representatives, and will cite such further de¬ 
velopments of the like character as are made in the course of the Testimony 
taken and reported by the Chairman of the investigating Committee: 

1. Respecting the felonious deposit of the moneys entrusted to the late Clerk 
for disbursement, noticed at page 4 of the preceding “Review,” as having been 
made in the bank of Suter, Lea, & Co., I find such deposit was declared to have 
been made in said bank, in the words of Mr. Cullom, at page 489, of the Report, 
saying to Mr. Bailey : “ Do you not know, that in making up the estimates of 
the amount 1 had in the bank of my disbursing agents, Messrs. Suter, Lea, <$ Co., 
this item of $1,800 was estimated and so returned ?” But in regard to said de¬ 
posit having been made in the bank of Suter, Lea, & Co., Mr. Lea positively 
and peremptorily declares that such deposits never were made in the bank of 
Suter, Lea, & Co., and that they never were his agents, for he would have noth¬ 
ing to do in the matter. He thinks that deposits were made with Mr. Suter, 
individually, with which he (Mr. Lee) would have no concern. Yet it is mani¬ 
fest that the deposit with an individual, equivalent to a “ loan,” rather makes 
the matter worse, than diminish its wrong in any degree. 

2. As to the item of $1,800, above alluded to by Mr. Cullom, it was not re¬ 
turned to the Treasury until it was demanded by the Comptroller, Mr. Medill, 
on the settlement of Cullom’s accounts several months after the expiration of 
his term of office; but, in the mean time, the presentation of (false) vouchers 
therefor, and their allowance at the Treasury (supposing them to be correct, 
as ordinary vouchers of the kind) is fully set forth by Mr. Whittlesey’s commu¬ 
nication to the Committee, at page 450 of the Report, and confirmed by the 
Secretary’s answer to that call, as seen at page 196 of the same Report. Both 
documents .are addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, and establish the 
embezzlement of that sum beyond the possibility of a doubt or question, even 
by seeking for further transcripts from the Treasury to make further exhibits 
of those fraudulent vouchers as evidence, in pursuance of the act quoted at 
page 5 of the preceding “ Review.” 

3. Under the Treasury regulations and the principles of law, quoted also at 
page 5 of the Review, declaring the reciprocal accountability of agent and ern- 


A 



10 


APPENDIX. 


ploy6 on the one hand, and the supervising or employing officer on the other, 
it is clear that Mr. Cullom is responsible for the exactions made by his agent, 
H. Tyler, from Messrs. Gales & Seaton of $7,000, which is fully proved by the 
testimony of Mr. Seaton, at pp. 305, 306, and 307, of the Report. 

4. Under the same regulations and principles of law, Mr. Cullom is responsi¬ 
ble for the exactions made by his agent, H. Tyler, from John Tretler of $12,000 
on Cullom’s contract with him for binding, which is fully proved by the testi¬ 
mony of John Tretler, at pages 349, 350, of the Report. 

5. Under the same regulations and principles of law, Mr. Cullom is respon¬ 
sible for all the peculations of his agents or employes, made under the pretext 
of commissions and profits of trade, though inhibited by law to speculate on 
their principal. And it is clearly established by the testimony of James W. 
Fitzhugh, at p. 329 of the Report, that he, as agent of William Cullom, charged 
33, 50, and nearly 100 per cent, on the prices of regular dealers in carpets and 
other articles purchased of them for his employer, Mr. Cullom, he knowing and 
expressly authorizing said peculations, as seen by his note of authority at page 
335, and the further evidence of Capt. Meigs, at page 300 of said Report—of 
which peculations, it would require a thorough examination of all his bills and 
accounts to make a correct estimate of the enormous amount. 

6. Under the same regulations and principles of law, the like peculations are 
established by the testimony of John D. Thompson, in his own case, at pp. 
269, 270, and 271, where it is confounded somewhat with that of Mr. Fitz¬ 
hugh, both seeming to be acting under the same order of Mr. Cullom to execute 
the directions of Capt. Meigs in regard to furnishing a carpet, &c% for the 
New Hall, which identical carpet he had selected at $1.75 laid down, on which 
identical carpet the commissions and profits charged amounted to $1,000. The 
testimony of said John I). Thompson, at page 433, also shows and proves a like 
rapacity for profits or commissions in purchases made of Mr. Lamb, regular 
dealer in mirrors, &c., under the pretext of hazards in their handling and 
putting up—as likewise on various other furnishing, for which he laid his bills 
before the Committee of Accounts without submitting them to the Clerk—though 
he was responsible for them—probably by his own recognition in order to shield 
his responsibility. 

7. In regard to the receiving of bids and the awarding of contracts for sta¬ 
tionery according to provisions of law, the statement of the first resolution of 
the Committee is not sustained by the evidence. On the contrary, it is proved 
by William F. Bayly, page 272, by Amariah Holbrook, page 384, and A. D. 
Jessup, page 323, that proposals on better samples and lower prices were reject¬ 
ed, while those offered by George S. Gideon, agent here, for their competitors, 
w'ere accepted, and contracts awarded on inferior samples at higher prices, for 
which the Clerk is also amenable to the law. 

8. In regard to the statement of the second resolution, that “no special 
blame attaches to the late Clerk” for the “ great abuses that exist in the man¬ 
agement and disposition of the stationery,” while the admitted facts of great 
abuses existing do attach special blame to the late Clerk as the responsible head 
and principal of those in charge, it is proved by Wm. II. Minnix, in charge, 
p. 235 and pp. 243, 244, that stationery of all kinds “ had been given as presents 
to persons not entitled to them as officers of the House, while Mr. Cullom was 
Clerk.” Much other proof of like abuses in the disposition of stationery exists 
in the Testimony—that of John M. Barkley, at page 24, that it is treated as a 
perquisite of the Clerks, under carte blanche —for which the Clerk is responsible. 

9. In regard to the statement of the third resolution, “that negligence and 
carelessness have been shown in the execution of the House resolution of Janu¬ 
ary 30, 1846, but there is no evidence of either corruption or dishonesty in the 
premises on the part of the late Clerk,” the testimony referred to in the foregoing 
items, 5, 6, 7, and 8, of the reckless violations of law either by himself, or his 
agents with his own knowledge and authority, is prima facie evidence of a mis- 


APPENDIX. 


11 


feasance,” “malfeasance,” “corruption,” and “dereliction of duty,” especially 
touching the matters of per centage from 25 to 100 per cent, on the prices of 
regular dealers, between which and actual embezzlement in other forms there 
is not a slijade of difference. 

10. In regard to the statement of the fourth resolution, “that negligence and 
inattention have been shown by the late Clerk in executing the resolution of 
July 7, 1856, and the act of 3d March, 1857,” it is presumable, as the commit¬ 
tee stop at this admission and make no exculpatory declaration, that this negli¬ 
gence and inattention amount at least to “misfeasance” and “dereliction of 
duty” on the part of the late Clerk, even in their estimation. 

11. But on looking further, and comparing the evidence alluded to in the 
fifth resolution, respecting the purchase and delivery of books to certain new 
members of the 34th Congress, in executing the aforesaid resolution of July 7, 
1856, the perjury and embezzlement resulting from the non-delivery of the books 
in the two instances of Mr. Jewett and Mr. Walbridge, proved at pp. 319, 338 of 
the Report, and the payment of part of the money instead, retaining the rest, 
sufficiently characterize the felonious purport of the “negligence and inatten¬ 
tion” denounced by the Committee in the said/ourfA resolution. But yet more 
than that: it is proved by the testimony at page 429 of the same Report, that 
the Hon. John Williams neither received his books nor money instead, though 
his receipt for the books under date of July 15, 1856, had been presented to 
the Treasury as a voucher, with others, and the amount allowed amongst the 
other receipts of the twenty-one members charged by the lat$ Clerk with the 
delivery of the books for which they had passed their receipts. But again : as 
the Committee took the testimony of only nine of the said twenty-one mem¬ 
bers, it turns out that one-third of them did not receive their books in fact, as 
set forth in Cullom’s account, admitted and paid at the Treasury. How many 
more of the other twelve members who were not examined would have dis¬ 
claimed and denied having actually received their books, and why the Commit¬ 
tee did not take their testimony, is presumptive evidence that yet more than 
one-third of them did not receive their books, if any did. Mr. Williams’ case, 
alone, is a strong one, and a little leaven leaveneth the whole batch. 

Note. —It will be perceived, by comparing the foregoing exhibits with the following letter from 
Mr. Whittlesey, which was in possession of the committee during their whole investigation, 
how far they profited by his suggestions. 

Canfield, Masoning Co., Ohio, November 24 th, 1857. 

Dear Sir: In regard to so much of jmur letter of the 19th as relates to the contemplated crirni' 
nal proceedings against’Mr. Cullom, I am not sufficiently acquainted with what took place after I 
left Washington to form an opinion whether he has made himself amenable to the criminal laws. 
If he swore he purchased books under the resolution of July 7th, (which I think is the date,) 
before the passage of the act of the last session to indemnify him, I have no doubt he committed 
perjury. The names of the members of Congress who gave the certificates [receipts] ought to be 
known, to give an opportunity to their constituents to ascertain what they have done with their 
books. If the House of Representatives will enter upon the investigation, and prosecute, as a 
prudent individual would the committal of a flagrant fraud involving his rights, turpitude will be 
disclosed that will astound the nation. Can such an investigation be hoped to take place? Who. 
will have the moral courage to do it ? Who will break their party fetters, and impartially and 
faithfully rebuke peculation? Who has such a regard for the people, as to let them know what 
the officers and members of Congress have done? and how much money they have abstracted 
from the treasury for their individual interest, in violation of law and duty? 

I do not charge all the members with dishonesty, but I do charge such members as have com¬ 
bined with the Clerk, and received the money instead of the books, or who have divided the money 
with the Clerk, with being dishonest , and plunderers of the treasury; and they ought to be turned 
out and exposed. It can be done without any doubt, and all that is wanting is to commence the 
investigation “without fear, favor, or affection ,” with a due and strict regard to the truth, and to 
the public interest, and to public morals; and then to persevere, regardless of all denunciations 
from interested parties, or from their friends and confederates. Party considerations should 
have nothing to do with the subject in the slightest degree; buttfn«!A, unswerving truth, .should 
be the only object to serve and promote. If you can obtain a committee that will thoroughly and 
dispassionately investigate the subject, the people will bless and reverence them. 

. Most sincerely yours, 

R. Mato, M. D. ELISHA WHITTLESEY. 

According to the suggestion contained in the above letter, which was in pos¬ 
session of the Committee during the whole investigation, I subjoin the list of 


12 


APPENDIX. 


the 21 members who gave their receipts for the books, of which the first was 
given in five days after the resolution had passed. Of the 21, only 9 were ex¬ 
amined, and their names are here distinguished by stars (*) in the list. 


Lists of Members and dates of their receipts for Catalogues. 


1. *Ezra Clarke, Jr.. 

2. M. Trafton. 

3 *Jnhn Williams. 


.13 “ ’ “ 

.15 “ “ 

4. F. S. Edwards. 


..16 

66 

66 

5. J. Knight. 


.18 

66 

66 

6. *J. H. Jewett. 


..19 

u 

66 

7. H. A. Gilbert. 


.19 

66 

.6 

8. * Jacob Broom. 


.19 

66 

66 

Q .T T? Emerifi. 


.19 

66 

66 

10. Ebenezer Knowlton. 


.20 

66 

66 

11. *D. S. Walbridge. 


.21 

66 

66 

19, .Tnh n Wnod r n fF. 

.of Connecticut. 

.22 

66 

66 

13. * James Buffinton. 


.22 

66 

66 

14. *R. B. Hall. 


.23 

66 

66 

15. Guy R. Pelton. 


.26 

66 

66 

16. Sarn’l F. Swope . 


.26 

66 

66 

17. *Wm. Millward. 



66 

18. Sarn’l Dickson. 



66 

66 

19. P. T. Herbert . 

20. *M. A. Otero. 

21. A. K. Marshall . 


.10 “ 

66 


Section 4. 

Of the triple fraud practised by the late Clerk in regard to executing the book reso¬ 
lution of July 7, 1856. 

In conclusion, it is necessary and proper in this place to exhibit, as briefly 
as possible, the authorities on which it is contended that there are THREE 
parties defrauded by William Cullom, in his account for books alleged to have 
been purchased and delivered to 21 members of the 34th Congress, whose re¬ 
ceipts he had irregularly obtained before the books had been actually delivered, 
and before any appropriation had been made to pay for them ; and to state who 
are those parties thus defrauded: 

In the first place, the late Clerk has defrauded certain publishers who had a 
vested right to supply their books embraced in the said resolution, by refusing 
to take their books for the object of the resolution. 

Secondly, He has defrauded certain members or their constituents, by making 
but partial purchases, and those chiefly second-hand, abused, and defective 
copies, at reduced prices, instead of new, complete, unabused editions from the 
publishers. 

Thirdly, The late Clerk has defrauded the Treasury of the United States, by 
charging full prices for such imperfect, second-hand, abused, and defective 
copies as he may have purchased at reduced prices ; and in like manner for 
others not actually purchased at any price, or delivered at all. 

Of this triple fraud, the late Comptroller of the Treasury, Mr. Whittlesey, 
in his letter to the Secretary of the Treasury of the 21st March, 1857, (Report, 
page 27, A No. 1,) speaking of the manner in which this matter has been con¬ 
ducted, (by sham purchases, delivery, and receipts,) says: 

“ In that way, the publishers have been defrauded, as their books, pub¬ 
lished at heavy expenses, have remained on hand; the treasury has been 













































APPENDIX. 


13 


defrauded, of the amount retained by the Clerk; and the people have been 
defrauded, by withholding the information the books were designed to dis¬ 
seminate.”—See pnge 29 of the Report. 

On the same subject of this triple fraud, W. W. Seaton, in his testimony, 
commencing at page 305 of the Report, says : 

. “ Under the letter of the law the Clerk was not required in express terms 
to purchase the books of the publishers; but as they could only be got else¬ 
where by purchasing those that the government had already bought and placed 
in depositories throughout the country for a public object—that is to say, for 
the use of members, and access for their constituents—for that is the motive 
and object on which the whole plan of destribution rests—I thought it a viola¬ 
tion of the proper duty of the Clerk to purchase these books elsewhere than of 
the publishers, as he would not thereby increase their distribution in the coun¬ 
try, but would restrict and reduce their circulation, besides taxing the treasury 
for books already bought and paid for by the government; because if the same 
books were to serve successive Congresses you might make one set alone do 
that. I thought it the duty of the Clerk to purchase additional and new books, 
as to purchase the same books over and over again would defeat the intention 
of the distribution. That is my view of the case.”—See page 313 of the Report. 

The resolutions of the two Houses of Congress on which the above rational 
and conclusive views were founded, and which could never give w’ay to the cu¬ 
pidity of the Clerk in procuring the restriction to the publishers to be omitted 
from the resolution of July 7, 1856, are here subjoined, viz : 

[ 1 - ] 

Joint resolution of the Thirty-Third Congress , Statutes at Large, volume 10, 

page 591. 

“ A Resolution for supplying new members of the Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives with such books of a public character as have been heretofore 
supplied. 

“ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That each of the new members of the two 
Houses of Congress be supplied with the same number and description of such 
books of a public character as were supplied to each member of the Senate or 
House of Representatives during the last Congress: Provided, They be furnish¬ 
ed by the publishers at prices not exceeding those at which they have been 
heretofore supplied for the use of members of either House. 

“Approved, February 24, 1854.” 


[ 2 .] 

“ In the Senate United States, May 8, 1854. 

“ Mr. Jones, of Iowa, from the Committee on Pensions, reported the follow¬ 
ing resolution, which was read : 

“ Resolved, That the joint resolution of the 24th February, 1854, for supply¬ 
ing new members of the present Congress with all “such books of a public 
character, and in the same proportion as were furnished to members of either 
House during the last Congress”—embraces “ Mayo & Moulton’s edition of the 
Pension and Bounty Land Laws, &c.,” in the proportion of eight copies to each 
of said new members; and that the Secretary of the Senate shall so understand 
and execute the said resolution”—p. 381. 

“ 1854, June 13. The Senate resumed the consideration of the above reso¬ 
lution, and agreed thereto.”—p. 431, [Senate Journal, 1st sess. 33d Congress.] 


14 


I 


APPENDIX. 


[3.] 


House resolution extending and explaining the above Journal of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, June 23—24, 1854, pages 1063, 1064. 

“ Resolved, That in adopting the joint resolution from the Senate authorizing 
the distribution of books among the new members of the two Houses of Con¬ 
gress, the House of Representatives intended that when the publisher of any 
such books is unable to supply them, the Clerk of the House shall be at liberty 
to purchase them of any other person; and that when such books as have been 
distributed to members are not to be readily obtained, other books of similar 
character may be supplied to them : Provided , That no more shall be paid there¬ 
for than has been paid for the books for which those shall be substituted : Pro¬ 
vided also, That the new edition of the Opinions of the Attorneys General of the 
United States, contained in four volumes, and having an index, be substituted 
for the imperfect edition heretofore distributed : Provided, The cost thereof shall 
not exceed fifteen dollars per copy : And provided further, That all members 
who have not received the books contemplated herein shall be furnished there¬ 
with.” 

[4.] 


House resolution, July 7, 1856.— House Journal. 

“ Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives furnish and deliver 
to each of the members and delegates of the House of the present Congress 
who have not already received the same, and pay for the same out of the con¬ 
tingent fund of the House, such number and editions of such books of a public 
character as ivere furnished to the new members and delegates in the last Con¬ 
gress uader the joint resolution of February 23-24, 1854, and the resolution of 
the House of Representatives of June 20-24, 1854: Provided, That they be 
furnished at prices not exceeding those for which they were heretofore sup¬ 
plied to such members and delegates.” 

I will only add here, that the obvious intent and meaning of Congress was 
to restrict the supply to the publishers, throughout, though omitted in the last 
resolution. 

Of this prevailing intention nothing can be more conclusive than the explan¬ 
atory resolution of the House of June 23d, 1854, in these words: “ Resolved, 
That in adopting the joint resolution, &c., the House intended that when the 
publisher of any such book is unable to supply them, the Clerk of the House 
shall be at liberty to purchase them of any other person,” &c. The mere 
omission of this restriction, in the resolution of July 7th, does not impugn the 
common law equity by which the publishers claim to supply the books. It 
would have required more than that to abolish this right of usage under the 
former laws. 

The fraud on the publishers was perpetrated to give the Clerk an opportu¬ 
nity to practice his frauds on the Treasury and the Congressional districts. 
But for the injury done to the publishers, there would have been no fraud on 
the Treasury or the People. Moreover, had the original intention of Congress 
been executed in good faith, by distributing the books for the information of 
the members and their constituents in the respective Congressional districts, 
there would have been no necessity for a restriction of the supply of the books 
to the publishers, as they could not have been produced from any other quarter. 
Nor could the violation of the rights of the publishers, under any circum. 


APPENDIX. 


15 


stances, have been based on any other than the depraved impulse of dishonesty 
and an inordinate “ rapacity'" for the “ almighty dollar.” But Congress having 
now given the proper direction for a portion of this nucleus of libraries to a few 
Congressional districts, confers a reciprocal right and obligation to equalize 
this literary munifience to all the other districts. 

Having consulted that eminent barrister and jurist, S. S. Baxter, Esq., upon 
the foregoing authorities and reasoning, in which he fully concurred, I engaged 
his kind offices to take the papers in the case to Mr. Cullom, with the subjoined 
account, and endeavor to convince him of my right. He consented to do so at 
his earliest convenience, and on the next morning I urged him in a note for 
reasons mentioned, to lose no time in making his call; to which his reply is 
also subjoined. Accordingly, Mr. Baxter saw Mr. Cullom, as proposed. It is 
unnecessary to state more here than that the terms suggested, on which the 
account would be received, were not acceptable to me; so that this, as well as 
previous efforts, and those of other publishers, with some exceptions, was also 
a failure. But Mr. Baxter’s opinion goes far to substantiate the right of all the 
publishers. 


Washington, July 10, 1857. 

William Cullom, Esq., Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, 

To R. MAYO.Dr. 

To one thousand one hundred and twenty-eight copies of the book known by the title 
of “Mayo & Moulton’s Pension and Bounty Land Laws,” the latest stereotype edition by 
Lucas Brothers—being the quota provided for in the deficiency bill of March 3d, 1857, in 
execution of the House Resolution of July 7,1856, ordering “such number and descrip¬ 
tion of such books of a public character as were furnished to the new members and dele¬ 
gates of the last (33d) Congress, under the (joint) resolution of February 24, 1854, and 
the House resolution of June 23d, 1854,” for the supply of ndV members and delegates of 
the 34th Congress, at three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) per copy. $3,952 


This bill is in conformity with the views of the Treasury Department in relation to the proper 
vouchers for the purchase of these books by the Clerk. 


R. MAYO. 


Dear Sir: I have reflected on the subject you mentioned last night and in your note this 
morning. 

I think you were right to put your receipt in such a form as will clearly sever you from any 
suspicion of participation in anything wrong that may occur. I think also that you ought to 
desire and use all proper efforts to get the order and receive the money for your books. 

But so far as your kindness of feeling leads you to interpose in this matter, to protect the 
Clerk from the consequences he, in your judgment, is bringing on himself, I think you err. He 
is a man of full age to take care of himself. If he intends nothing wrong, he will regard your 
course as officious; if he intends wrong, you cannot protect him; and your interference will 
do no good. I think your action should be limited to procuring the orders for your books and 
securing pay therefor. 

I certainly can go up, if necessary, on Thursday, perhaps on Wednesday. 

Yours, &c., 


Dr. Mayo. 


S. S. BAXTER, 





16 


INDEX. 


INDEX I. 


Alphabetical Index to Names of Witnesses. 




Page. 

Acton, E. A. 


.494 

Alexander, John. 


.474 

recalled. 


....524 

Ames, Isaac. 


.253 

Bailey, John. 


....266 

recalled. 


....487 

recalled. 



Bayly, Wm. F. 



Baily, William. 


....340 

recalled. 


....389 

Barker, Chas. W. 


....258 

Barkley, John M. 


....245 

recalled. 


....484 

Broom, Jacob. 


.337 

Buck, Daniel. 


....227 

recalled. 


....493 

recalled. 


....510 

Buftiuton, James. 


....322 

Burnett, J. J. 


....391 

Blanchard, Y. 


....519 

Bliss, Philemon. 


....476 

Clarke, Ezra. 


....323 

Callan, John F. 


....482 

Campbell, Lewis D. 


....500 

Clingman, T. L. 


....504 

Denham, C. 


....507 

recalled. 


....522 

Elliott, R. K. 


....539 

Emmerich, Frederick. 


....267 

Fitzhugh, J. W. 


....309 

French, B. B. 


.. 528 

recalled. 


....531 

Gideon, G. S. 


....260 

Gordon, J. N. 


....450 

Greenlease. J. C. 


....423 

Hall, R. B. 


....317 

Holbrook, Amariah. 


....284 

recalled. 


....335 

Hudson, Wm. Y. 


....458 

Hurlbutt, C. F. 


....450 

recalled.. 


....545 

Ingram, Wm. P.. 


....225 

recalled. 


....545 


Page. 

Jessup, A. D. 328 

Jewett, J. H.319 

Lamb, Francis.356 

recalled.,.388 

Levis, George H.279 

Mayo, R.459 

McClarin, John.401 

Meigs, M. C.300 

Mill ward, Wm.422 

Minnix, Wm. H.235 

Norris, Thomas De K.264 

Noyes, Samuel V.474 

Otero, M. A.321 

Owens, Andrew T.275 

Parker, S. R.442 

Prentice, Rufus.452 

Rives, John C.410 

. recalled.507 

Seaton, W. W.305 

Sinclair, Thomas.283 

Smith, James B.280 

Shillington, Joseph.471 

Spinner, F.448 

recalled.,.450 

Stanton, S. S.372 

Taylor, Hudson.250 

Thompson, John 1).269 

recalled.433 

recalled.537 

Tretler, John.349 

Tretler, J. II.535 

Upton, Charles H.270 

Walbridge, D. S.338 

Walker, James C.248 

| Wallach, C. P.445 

Wheelright, J.258 

Whittlesey, Elisha.287 

recalled.357 

recalled.406 

recalled.448 

Williams, lion. John.427 

recalled.452 

Tyler, II.551 



























































































17 


i 


INDEX. 


INDEX II. 


EMBRACING IN GENERAL TERMS THE SUBJECTS OF THE REPORT, AND THE NAMES OF 
THE WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH. 


Page. 

Report by Mr. Maynard, Chairman of the Committee of Investigation. 1 

Schedule of the copies of Papers and Correspondence from the files of the 
Register, the Auditor, and the Comptroller, relating to Cullom’s account. 11 
Copies of the papers of said Schedule. 27 

Note. —The general character of those documents may be learned from the letter of the 
Comptroller, Mr. Medill, to the Secretary, Mr. Cobb, of February 10, 1858, (which refers also 
to the Schedule.) and from Mr. Cobb’s letter to Mr. Maynard, at page 196, transmitting copies 
of accounts of William Cullom and decision thereon by the Auditor—also respecting the 
receipts of William Baily, J. C. Greenlease, J. J. Burnett, and S. S. Stanton, on vouchers 
returned to the Treasury on the last quarter of the year 1856, of $150 each, retained by rea¬ 
son of non-performance of service—on which the Secretary saysby the report of the Comp¬ 
troller it appears that there is no evidence in his office [February 10, 1858] of the refunding 


of that money [$1,800] into the Treasury by Wm. Cullom. 

Minutes of the Committee, on calling witnesses, &c. 207 

Testimony, commenced Jan’y 26, 1858 (ended February 15, 1859). 225 


Names of Witnesses and Subjects : # 

Ingram, Wm. P., Chief Clerk—examined on accounts and disbursements... 226 
Buck, Daniel, in charge of files—examined on advertisements and contracts 227 
Minnix, Wm. H., in charge of stationery—examined on stationery and 

bids for, on samples. - .. 236 

Barkley, John M., Journal Clerk—examined on stationery. 245 

Says it is considered a perquisite of the Clerks under carte blanche . 247 

Walker, Jas. C., Reading Clerk—examined on stationery. 248 

Taylor, Hudson, Bookseller—examined on stationery. 250 

Ames, Isaac, Stationer—examined on stationery. Had a general contract 

on ; says Geo. S. Gideon prepared his bids as his agent. 253 

Baker, Charles W., had a contract for envelopes. Says Geo. S. Gideon 

prepared his bids as his agent. 257 

Wheelright, J., agent for paper manufacturers—had a contract for letter 

paper. Says Geo. S. Gideon prepared his bids as his agent. 258 

Gideon, Geo. S., Printer—had no contract for stationery, but received or¬ 
ders—acted as agent for others.-. 260 

Harris, Thos. De K., Clerk in charge of bills and joint resolutions—ex¬ 
amined on stationery..... 264 

Bailey, John, clerk in various matters—examined on stationery. 266 

Emmerich, Fred’k, Messenger—examined on stationery. 267 

Thompson, John D., first a clerk, then furnisher—examined on stationery, 
and on his accounts for upholstery, &c.—would present bills to Commit¬ 
tee of Accounts, and receive money on their approval, constantly, with¬ 
out presenting them to the Clerk*. 269 


* Tlie House resolution of January 30, 1846 intended to establish the salutary principle of 
checks and balances between the Clerk and the Accounting Committee of the House, in regard to 
all accounts against the contingent fund, so that such accounts shall be first approved by the 
Clerk before being presented to the Committee, seems to have been entirely disregarded by Mr. 
Thompson, by the late Clerk, and by the committee. The Clerk was and is more particularly 
responsible for this violation of the resolution, which is here introduced to show that reckless 






















18 


INDEX. 


• Page. 

Bayly, Wm. F., Stationer—examined on stationery—testifies respecting 

unfair treatment of bidders, &c. 272 

Upton, Chas. H., Clerk in the House Post Office—examined on stationery... 274 

Owens, Andrew T., Messenger—examined on stationery—its abuse.. 275 

Levis, George, Paper Manufacturer—had bills from the superintendent of 
public printing, on the late Clerk, equal to $100,000 in the two years; 

and Geo. S. Gideon was his agent. 279 

Smith, James B., Bookbinder in Philadelphia—assignee of Y. Blanchard of 
a bill on the late Clerk which he could not collect, and lost a discount in 

consequence. 280 

Sinclair, Thomas, Lithographer—had bills against the Clerk, which tvere 

paid by his Chief Clerk. 283 

Holbrook, Amariah, joint owner of a paper mill—made bids for wrapping 
paper without an agent, which were rejected—was told by Mr. Sanborn, 
a clerk under Mr. Cullom, that he would get nothing if he offered at 

half price. 284 

Whittlesey, Elisha, late Comptroller—examined respecting Cullom’s re¬ 
quisition for $50,000, as indemnity for the purchase of books. 287 

Meigs, M. C., Superintendent of Improvements—examined respecting car¬ 
pet selected by him for the new Hall at $1.75, &c., which Cullom claimed 

the right to furnish. 300 

Seaton, W. W., examined respecting Cullom’s placing him in the hands of 
H. Tyler, to purchase his books, which resulted in Tyler’s demand of 

$13,000 bonus , compromised at $7,000. 305 

Hall, R. B., Member of 34th Congress—examined inspecting his receipt for 
books—prevaricates—never saw the books, but considers they were with¬ 
in his control. 317 

Jewett, J. H., Member of 34th Congress—examined respecting his books 


—a clerk of Cullom’s came to his desk after the passage of the book reso¬ 
lution, and asked him if he would take the books, and asked Mr. Bur¬ 
nett also; Mr. B. refused. Mr. J. gave a receipt for his books, but 

received part of the money instead of the books. 319 

Otero, Maguil A., Member 34th Congress—says he received the books. 321 

Buffinton, James, Member 34th Congress—says he received his books. 322 

Clarke, Ezra, Member 34th Congress—says he received his books. 323 

Jessup, A. D., Paper Manufacturer—bid for contract to furnish paper; 
had no agent; bids rejected ; thought he was entitled from superior sam¬ 
ples—rudeness of Cullom. 323 

Fitzhugh, J. W., Upholsterer—examined on carpet selected by Capt. Meigs 
for the new Hall at a certain price, which he bought and put it down 

by order of Mr. Cullom, at nearly 100 per cent, more. 329 

Holbrook, A., recalled—thinks his paper was better than the samples that 

obtained the contracts. 335 

Broom, Jacob, Member 34th Congress—says he received his books. 337 

Walbridge, D. S., Member 34th Congress—received $500 instead of books 

—supposed it was the full amount, [was $570 less.]. 338 

Baily, William, one of the suspended clerks for 3 months, whose receipts 
were taken for $450 each, but not paid. 340 


violation of official duty by which thousands and thousands of dollars were abstracted from the 
Treasury under color of perquisites, commissions, profits, and extra charges, &c., &c, 

“Whereas the Clerk of the House is by law made the responsible officer for the proper dis¬ 
bursement of the contingent fund, and is required to give bond for the faithful disbursement 
thereof, therefore— 

“ Resolved , That from and after the passage of this resolution, all contracts, bargains, or agree¬ 
ments relative to the furnishing any matter or thing, or for the performance of any labor for the 
House of Representatives, be made with the Clerk, or approved by him, before any allowance 
shall be made therefor by the Committee on Accounts .”—Resolution of House , passed 30 Jan’y 
1846 —page 323 House Journal. 























INDEX. 


19 


Page. 


Tretler, John, Bookbinder—had a contract with Cullom, procured by II. 

Tyler, and paid Tyler $12,000 for it. 349 

Lamb, Francis, regular dealer in mirrors—furnished to John D. Thomp¬ 
son, in amount of $1,000 for the Capitol—(see Thompson, for his percent¬ 
age on them). 356 

Whittlesey, Elisha, recalled—desired to explain part of former testimony; 


in course of which he is catechised, by Cullom; to which Mr. W. ob¬ 
jects, and at suggestion of Mr. Horton, questions desired by Mr. Cul¬ 
lom to be answered were required to be put by the Chairman ; in the 
course of which an active effort was made to put Mr. Whittlesey on 
trial for inconsistency in his official actions towards Cullom, but with 

singular defeat in that object*. 357 

Stanton, S. S., was one of those clerks who were suspended by Cullom 
and required to give receipts for three months’ salary and sign the 
pay-roll—gives a minute statement of that transaction ; and says that 
the mystery of Cullom’s intention to appoint substitutes, who would 
of course sign the pay-roll, and his requiring the suspended clerks to sign 
the pay-roll for the same period, was unintelligible to him; and testified 
that Cullom had said on one occasion in Tennessee, that he would make 


$100,000 by his office. 372 

Worthington, Thos. H., supplied the late Clerk with white ash coal—for 

which his bills were paid. 387 

Lamb, Francis, recalled —produced copy of his account for mirrors furnished 
to J. D. Thompson for the Capitol, [on which T. charged an exorbitant 

percentage]. 388 

Baily, Wm., recalled —testifies further respecting his pay retained by Cul¬ 
lom for 3 months ; that he had asked leave of absence for only one month, 
but was required to sign agreement for three months, which he signed 

with a protest. 389 

Burnett, J. J., testifies respecting his pay of $450 retained by Cullom, for 
3 months ; was of opinion that Cullom applied the money so retained 

from the suspended clerks to his own use. 391 

McClarin, John, a merchant of Carthage, Tennessee—acted as Cullom’s 

financial agent—testifies to his thrift. 401 

Whittlesey, E., recalled a second time —reads a communication requesting the 


Committee to request the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish copies of 
certain papers, including the receipts of S. S. Stanton, J. J. Burnett, J. 
C. Greenlease, and Wm. Baily, for $450 each, not paid to them, nor re¬ 
paid into the Treasury.* [Here, also, Mr. Whittlesey was again put on 


trial, in which he was again triumphant as before]...,. 406 

Hives, John C., examined respecting the purchase of the .Globe. 410 

Millward, Wm., Member 34th Congress—gave receipt for his books. 422 


* I subjoin a letter from Mr. Whittlesey, in which he speaks with proper indignation respecting 
the course practised towards him, as above alluded to. 

Canfield, Ohio, April 7 th , 1859. 

Dr. R. Mato, Washington : 

Dear Sir : The mail brought me to-day the No. 1 of your review of Mr. Maynard’s Report in the 
case of William Cullom. * * * 

Many may suppose that the documents I called for from the Comptroller’s Office were foreign 
to the charges against Mr. Cullom before the Committee for investigation. It will be seen, how¬ 
ever, when my testimony is published, that an effort was made to place me on trial instead of Mr. 
Cullom—a question was asked to convict me of making a decision in the matter of Mr. Cullom’s 
account, inconsistent with my previous decisions. If some members of the Committee had been 
as vigilant in search of the truth against Mr. Cullom, as they were to implicate me falsely, they 
would have reported much earlier than they did. 

I shall be pleased to have a copy of the document when printed. When you read it you will 
see to what I refer. 

Most sincerely yours, 

ELISHA WHITTLESEY. 















20 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Greenlease, J. C., one of those who were required to give receipts for three 
months’ salary, $450 each, which they never received, nor were sub¬ 


stitutes employed in their stead, as Cullom said he intended to do. 423 

Williams, John, Member 34th Congress—gave a receipt for his books, but 
never received them to this day, nor the money. 427 

[Note—M r. Williams was the 3d on the list of 21 members who passed their receipts to Mr. 


Cullom for their hooks; hut only 9 were examined by the committee; while all or many 
of the other 12 might not have received their books, though they gave their receipts for 
them. To ascertain this, it M r as the duty of the committee to have taken the testimony of 
them all, as far as it was practicable; and I learn from the Clerk’s office that on members 
giving receipts for hooks, the receipts are entered on the book record in the Clerk’s office, 
and the books stand charged as having hem delivered, whether they were actually delivered 
or not. Nor can that question go behind the receipt, which is considered absolute and 
final .—See John Bailey’s testimony, p. 487, Report.] 

Thompson, John D., recalled —bought, by authority of Cullom, a number of 
mirrors from Mr. Lamb, regular dealer in Washington, and charged near¬ 


ly 100 per cent, on his prices. 433 

Parker, A. R., Draftsman—examined respecting the agreement with the 

suspended clerks*....,. 442 

Wallach, C. P., Clerk on Maps—examined respecting agreement with the 

suspended clerks. 445 

Spinner, Francis E., Member of 34th Congress—books were sent by his 
indication to a library in his district, greatly abused and badly worn, 
of which lie told Mr. Rives. 448 


Whittlesey, E., recalled a 2>d time —reads a communication E. W. No. 1, 
(at page 450,) in which he states the amount ($1,800) withheld by 
Mr. Cullom from Messrs. Baily, Greenlease, Burnett, and Stanton, for 
which he claimed a credit which was allowed at the Treasury, when, 
in fact, he had not paid them. It farther states that “if those clerks 
were entitled to compensation according to law and the usages of the 
office, it was malfeasance to withhold the money from them.” “ If they 
were not so entitled, it was malfeasance to take their receipts, and to ob¬ 
tain credit for paying money which Mr. Cullom now admits was not 
paid.” “The section cited in the act of August 6, 1846, also provides, 
‘ that any failure to pay over or to produce the public moneys entrusted 
to such person’ (disbursing officer) «shall be held and taken to be prima 
facie evidence of embezzlement.’ ” Mr. Cullom has not, as appears from 
said account, designated “ C,” paid over said sum of $1,800, nor has he 


produced it, which by law is a malfeasance. (Signed,) Elisha Whittle¬ 
sey, Washington, March 18, 1858 . 449 

Hurlbutt, C. F., an assistant clerk—was not present at the arrangement 

with said clerks, &c. .. 451 

Prentice, Rufus, a clerk on maps—was present at the time of tlie arrange¬ 
ment with said clerks. 452 

Gordon, J. M., a clerk on maps—was present ditto—testifies that, so far 
as regards their having leave of absence, it was at their instance; but 
does not think they expected to loose their pay while they were away, 

when they first asked leave. 454 

Spinner, Francis E., recalled —produces list of the books sent by his re¬ 
quest to library in his district. [Among which, Mayo & Moulton’s 
Pension Laws was a 2d-liand copy of the old and worthless edition, super¬ 
seded by two subsequent editions.]. 456 

Hudson, Wm. V., examined respecting what Mr. Cullom said about Mr. 

Williams’ books.. 458 

Mayo, Ft., proprietor and publisher of Mayo & Moulton’s Pension and 
Bounty Land Laws—states his interview "with H. Tyler, Cullom’s agent 
for the purchase of books for members of 34th Congress; Tyler said 


many persons had offered the books to him at reduced prices—witness 
disdained to reduce the price of his books. Tyler agreed that witness 














INDEX. 


* 


•21 


Page. 

was entitled to have an order for 8 copies of his books for each new 
member, in his opinion, but would have to refer it to Mr. Cullom; the 
books were not so ordered. Soon after this, witness saw the account and 
receipt of said Tyler in the Comptroller’s office and then in the Auditor’s 
office, for 24 sets of books for 24 members. Did not believe the books 
had been purchased or delivered in good faith, or the money paid to 
Tyler; said “there is such a thing as giving receipts constructively, 
without money having been received,” &c. Other matters involving mal¬ 
feasance and misfeasance were adverted to.^. 459 

[Note. —In tlio course of the examination which took place on the 22d March, 1858, witness 
proposed to present a series of interrogatories to be propounded to H. Tyler, which was 
agreed to, and were presented to the Chairman shortly afterwards: Mr. Cullom was 
present, and about the time they were presented, Tyler sailed for Cuba, as is reported on 
the subpoena, for his attendance, and returned by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Nor were said 
interrogatories propounded to Tyler by Mr. Rieaud, when he afterwards examined him 
at the Astor House, on his return from Cuba during the recess of Congress, as will be 
seen by his testimony appended to this Report, dated 22d September, 1858, which testi¬ 
mony, being in answer to a totally different set of interrogatories, seems to have no other 
object than to exonerate Mr. Cullom by the negative answers of his agent.] 

Shillington, Joseph, Bookseller—purchased 2d-hand books, and usually sup¬ 


plied such for members of Congress under book resolutions, &c. 471 

Noyes, Samuel V., served with Mr. Shillington and knew of his transac¬ 
tions in books, &c./. 474 

Alexander, John, Upholsterer—furnished upholstery under Cullom, for the 
use of the House of Representatives and Committee rooms, during the 
month of February of the first session of 34th Congress. Charged 33 
per cent, on the cost of articles furnished. 474 


Bliss, Philemon, Member of 34th Congress—designated a library for his 
books; they were received in bad condition in several instances ; diplo¬ 
matic correspondence was not received, but was erased from the list sent; 
enquired of Mr. Cullom about it, and was told that hardly any of those 
were sent; “they had not been obtained for a portion, if for any of the 


members”. 47G 

Taylor, Hudson, Bookseller—furnished the late Clerk with books ; speaks 

of great facility in obtaining second-hand books, &c. 478 

Callan, John F., Clerk to a Committee of the Senate—speaks of books 
given to him by Senators; sold some to Mr. Rives, and some to Mr. Shil¬ 
lington. 482 

Rieaud, J. C., Member 34th Congress—designated a library for his own 

books, and where they were all received in good condition. 483 

Barkley, J. M., recalled —examined on the $50,000 requisition by, Mr. Cul¬ 
lom for books, &c. 483 

Horton, V. B., Member 34th Congress—designated a library for his books ; 
they were received with some irregularity, of a duplicate volume in one 

place and a volume deficient in another. 485 

Sherman, John, Member 34th Congress—had designated a library to 


receive his books; they have not been received ; but Mr. Bailey tells him 
they will be sent to-day, except the Diplomatic Correspondence, which 

is wanting . 486 

Bailey, John, Clerk—recalled and examined by Mr. Cullom chiefly—had 
charge of the books since the 1st of April, 1857, and, with the assist¬ 
ance of Fred’k Emmerich, attended to the receiving and sending away the 
books for libraries designated by members to receive them; examined 
also on the money retained from the 4 clerks, and likewise on the requi¬ 
sition for $50,000 for books—and by Mr. Horton as to evidence of the 
delivery of the 21 sets of books to 21 members—says the books of the 
office show whether the books have been delivered, where they are 
“ charged as delivered ” according to the receipts, and their delivery is 
known “ only from the record;” but if members should say their books 













INDEX. 


0‘> 


Page. 

were not actually received, there would be no remedy, as “we never 
go behind the record of the office.” “If we find a man charged by our 
predecessors with books, we go by the record.” [The plain inference is, 
that Mr. Cullom received the money for the 21 sets of books charged 
on the record from the 21 receipts of members, whether a single set, or 
any larger portion of them had actually been delivered—thus leaving a 
large and indefinite margin of peculation on such as may not have been 

actually received.]. 487 

Buck, Daniel, recalled —examined respecting the requisition for $50,000.... 403 
Acton, E. A., was assistant clerk in charge of the newspaper desk—was 
present at the arrangement of Cullom with other clerks about leave of 
absence, endorsing their check and signing the pay-roll on their return, 
with whom he was placed in the same category as to leave of absence 
to participate in the canvass, and to consider himself discharged, as 
others, during the recess. [A very sharp and recriminating altercation 
took place between him and Cullom, of considerable length, in which 
Cullom made many offensive interrogatories, most of which Act on denied, 
until at last Acton said: “ I would ask this Committee if they consider 
these questions as relevant?” Mr. Curry said, “ I was about to raise 


the same question.” Mr. Horton said, “ I have objected to these things 
so often that I am tired of doing so.” Here it wound up, Mr. Acton 
evidently holding the vantage ground of Cullom from beginning to end.] 494 
Campbell, Hon. Lewis D., examined on the question of the $50,000 indem¬ 
nity appropriation, as suggested by Mr. Mayo, the affirmatives of which 

were mainly sustained by Mr. Campbell. 500 

Clingman, Hon. T. L., examined on stationery—had to buy his own instead 

of that furnished. . 504 

Denham, C., Bookbinder—was a joint sub-contractor with others, under 

Williams’ contract for binding for the House. 507 

Hives, John C., recalled —examined on his purchase of his own books, and 

on his purchase of wrapping paper. 507 

Buck, Daniel, recalled "2d time —examined at the instance of Cullom respect¬ 
ing Mr. Rives’ purchase of his own books. [Not an unfrequent attempt 


by Cullom to put witnesses on trial instead of himself—see the cases of 


Mr. Whittlesey, Mr. Acton, Hon. John Williams, Mr. Baily, Mr. Stan¬ 
ton, Mr. Burnett, and others.]. 510 

Pettibone, Wm., Bookbinder—examined on Mr. Tretler’s contract; knew 

nothing except what Tretler told him. 512 

Ready, Charles, Member of 33d and 34th Congresses—says Mr. Cullom told 
him that he expected to make $20,000 out of the book resolution, before 

it had passed . 513 

Savage, John, Member 32d, 33d, and 34th Congresses—Mr. Cullom is a 

constituent of his; knows nothing on the subject of investigation. 515 

Zollicoffer, F. K., Member of the 33d and 34tli Congresses, from Tennessee 


—the late Clerk was an intimate acquaintance and friend—derived the 
impression from frequent conversations with him and others, that the 
office of Clerk affords large profits by fees, perquisites , and other emolu¬ 
ments under provisions of law ; but he never examined the laws to see 

how the profits arose. 516 

Hunnicutt, John A., former book clerk—knows nothing of the purchase or 

delivery of books under Mr. Cullom, except from hearsay. 519 

Blanchard, V., Bookseller—had bills against Cullom on a sub-contract for 
binding ; had great difficulty in collecting them ; assigned one for over 
$4,000 in payment to James B. Smith, of Philadelphia; his bills 
amounted to $70,000 or $80,000, from first to last; it was from Sep¬ 
tember to December that his troubles with Cullom arose. 519 

Denham, C., recalled —presented many bills to the late Clerk, for binding 
under sub-contract, (in which he and Blanchard were interested:) had 














INDEX. 


•2;] 


Page. 


to transfer many of the bills on account of difficulty in collecting them 
of Mr. Cullom. Said to Mr. Cullom, that “if our bills are not paid we 

will have to close the bindery,” &c. 522 

Alexander, John, recalled —had much difficulty in collecting his bills for 
upholstery furnished for Committee rooms. Gave Cullom $50 in gold to 
cash his bills; was dismissed before his bills were paid. 524 


French, B. B., sworn February 14, 1859—was formerly Clerk of the House 
of Representatives ; called soon after General Cullom’s election to con¬ 
gratulate him; in the course of conversation General Cullom asked him 
how much he made by the office ? Told him he made just his salary and 
the percentage allowed by the House; said Cullom, “You made more 


than that; don’t tell me.” “ No, not a cent more.” “ Well,” said the 

General, “I’ll make more than that, by God!” .’.. 528 

French, B. B., recalled —was questioned about the facilities of making 
money out of the office, by such a man as General Cullom, by specula¬ 
ting in public lands, stocks, land warrants, and real estate of all kinds ; 

thought he could not make money faster any other way. 531 

Bailey, John, recalled —examined on General Cullom’s mode of financial 

business. 533 

Tretler, J. H., son of John Tretler—testified to the frequent calls by Mr. 
Cullom at the bindery to see his father, but did not see him...,. 535 


Thompson, John D., recalled —-sworn February 15, 1859—testifies that 
General Cullom was very anxious to see Mr. Tretler about the conduct 
of his agent Tyler. Also that L. F. Clark, the upholsterer who succeeded 
him, charged curtains at the rate of $130 and $150 a window, for 
which $40 or $50 would be a liberal price; and thinks that certain 
mirrors, for which Clark charged $425 and $600, were of the same value 

as those he (Thompson) had charged the Government $275 for. 537 

Elliott, R. K., while collecting subscriptions for the Globe, was directed by 
Mr. Rives to examine the libraries to which books had been sent by the 
Clerk, and report respecting the books published by him ; found great 
defects in many of the books; binding much defaced, and Diplomatic 


Correspondence generally wanting. 545 

Ingram, Wm. T., recalled —examined respecting his fiscal agency, as Chief 
Clerk, in keeping the late Clerk’s accounts of disbursement of the con¬ 
tingent fund of the Hous6 of Representatives. 545 

Tyler, H., at the Astor House, New York, 22d September, 1859, sworn, and 
his testimony taken by J. B. Ricaud, member of the Committee, is ap¬ 
pended to the Report of the Committee, at page. 550 

[The interrogatories propounded by Mr. Ricaud, and the answers by H. Tyler, were ob¬ 
viously intended to exculpate Mr. Cullom, as well as such negative testimony could do, in 
the face of a great many witnesses to the contrary.] 


I here subjoin a copy of the interrogatories I proposed to the Chairman of 
the investigating Committee on the 22d March, 1858, for II. Tyler and others, 
when Mr. Cullom was present in the Committee. Shortly after that, Mr. Tyler 
sailed for Cuba, as was reported by the Sergeant-at-Arms on the subpoena 
issued for his attendance. The matter worthy of note here, is, that not one of 
these interrogatories was propounded to any of the parties, except the one 
intended for the Hon. Lewis D. Campbell; and, further, that.from those inter¬ 
rogatories intended for H. Tyler, it will be perceived there was a physical im¬ 
possibility for him to have bought the books in the time alleged, as well as a 
moral impossibility for him to answer them truthfully, without convicting both 
himself and Mr. Cullom of perjury. 














i>4 


INTERROGATORIES. 


Letter to the Hon. Horace Maynard , enclosing the interrogatories for 11. Tyler and 

others. 

Washington, March , 27, 1858. 

Hon. Horace Maynard, 

Chairman Com'ee of Investigation, fyc. : 

Sir: I have the honor to hand to you, herewith, the interrogatories for Mr. 
H. Tyler, and several other persons, which you authorized me, when before 
your Committee, to arrange and address to you, that you might submit them 
to the Committee. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. MAYO. 

Interrogatories for Mr. Hugh Tyler. 

1. Is this a copy of your account* against the “House of Representatives of 
tile United States,” for $25,880 40, with a copy of your receipt for the same 
in favor of William Cullom, endorsed on it, dated December — 1856 ? 

2. In what manner were you paid that sum of $25,880 40 by Mr. Cullom ? 

3. If by check or checks, on what bank, or sub-treasury of the United 
States, or otherwise, were they drawn, and what dates ? 


* House of Representatives of the United States . To H. Tyler. 


For the following hooks furnished by order of the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the 
United States, for the use of the members of the Thirty-Fourth Congress, under the resolution of 
the House of Representatives of July 7, 1856, viz: 


Sets. 

Vols. 


Per set. 

Total. 

24 

29 

Gales & Seaton’s Register of Debates. 

.$145 00.... 

.. $3,480 00 

24 

37 

Congressional Globe and Appendix. 

. 185 00.... 

.. 4.440 (10 

24 

1 

Contested Elections. 


120 00 

24 

2 

Senate Land Laws.. 

. 10 00.... 

240 00 

24 

5 

Elliot’s Debates. 


384 00 

24 

9 

American Archives. 

.. 151 60.... 

.. 3,638 40 

24 

7 

Diplomatic Correspondence. 


360 00 

24 

21 

Gales & Seaton’s Amei’ican State Papers. 

. 235 50.... 

.. 5,652 00 

21 

5 

Opinions of the Attorneys General. 

. 15 00.... 


21 

7 

Finance Reports.. 


576 00 

24 

42 

Gales & Seaton’s Annals of Congress. 

. 210 00.... 

.. 5.040 00 

24 

10 

John Adams’s Works. 

. 22 50.... 

540 00 

24 

7 

Alexander Hamilton’s Works. 



24 

1 

Hickey’s Constitution.. 


24 00 

24 

2 

Mayo’s Fiscal Department. 

. 5 00.... 

120 00 

24 

i 

Mayo & Moulton’s Pension and Bounty Land Laws.. 

. 3 50.... 

84 00 

24 

9 

Jefferson’s Works. 

. 20 25.... 

486 00 


$25,880 40 


Washington, December —, 1856. 

Received of William Cullom, Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, 
$25,880 40, in full of the within account. 


II. TYLER. 


I do hereby certify that the above account is just and correct, and that I purchased the books 
enumerated therein of II. Tyler, at the prices therein indicated, amounting to twenty-five thou¬ 
sand eight hundred and eighty dollars and forty cents, and paid for the same, and delivered said 
books to certain members of Congress entitled to the same, as required by the resolution of the 
7th July, 1856; and that said books have been delivered to the following members, as appears 
from the following vouchers, to wit:* (1) J. II. Jewett. (2) John Williams, (3) W. A. Gilbert, (4) 
E. Knowlton, (5) M. Trafton, (6) Guy R. Pelton, (7) M. A. Otero, (8) A. Iv. Marshall, (9) P. T. 
Herbert, 110) William Millward, (11) Jacob Broom, (12) D. S. Walbridge, (13) F. S. Edwards, (14) 
R. B. Hall, (15) Samuel Dickson, (16) Samuel F. Swope, (17) John Woodruff, (18) Ezra Clarke, 
(19) James Buffinton, (20) J. Knight, and (21) J. R. Emrie. The above account includes three 
complete sets of said books, included in the above purchase, and now on hand, not yet delivered. 

, WM. CULLOM, 

15th July, 1857. Cleric House Reps. U. S. 

* See those vouchers or receipts, page 107 to 120 of the Report, which vary materially from 
the above account. 










































INTERROGATORIES. 


25 


4. From whom did you purchase the books enumerated in said account ? And 
what prices did you pay for them by the volume or set ? 

5. Did you take receipts for the money you paid for each purchase ? And 
can you produce those receipts ? or did you, as the agent of Mr. Cullom, ex¬ 
hibit them as your vouchers to him ? 

6. Where and in what manner were those books delivered to you? And 
where and in what manner did you deliver them to Mr. Cullom ? 

7. Did you take receipts for them from him or his book clerk ? And can you 
produce those receipts ? 

8. Did you advertise for those books ? and if not, by what means did you pro¬ 
cure to be brought together the 24 sets of each description of books stated in 
your account, part of them within five days after the passage of the resolution 
of July 7, 1856, authorizing their purchase by the Clerk of the House, and the 
whole of them in less than one month, according to the dates of 21 members’ 
receipts for them to the Clerk ? 

9. What motive could have induced you to expend $25,880 40 under the 
“order” of or by “contract” with the Clerk of the House, when no appropria¬ 
tion had been made, seeing, too, the utter repugnance of the Senate to authorize 
any appropriation for that object? 

10. Can you produce the “order” of Mr Cullom, as mentioned in the heading 
of your account, or the “ Contract” as you term it in your statements to the 
Auditor (Nos. 52, 53, 54, Appendix of Certified Documents) requiring you to 
purchase said books ? 

11. As the agent of the Clerk of the House to purchase books under the 
resolution of July 7, 1856, ordering the same number and description of such 
books of a public character as were supplied to members of the preceding Con¬ 
gress, why and by what authority did you limit yourself to one copy of Hickey’s 
Constitution instead of 162 copies for each new member as had been furnished 
to members of the preceding Congress, and to one copy of Mayo’s United States 
Fiscal Department, instead of 2 copies as had been furnished to members of the 
preceding Congress, and to one copy of Mayo and Moulton’s Pension and Bounty 
Land Laws instead of 8 copies, as had been furnished to members of the preced¬ 
ing Congress ? 

12. As such agent of the Clerk, why did you not continue to purchase other 
assorted sets of said books during the four or five months that elapsed between 
those purchases stated in your account and the date of your reimbursement 
for them by the Clerk in December following, so that you might make up the 
amount of $50,000, alleged by Mr. Cullom to have been expended in the pur¬ 
chase of books under said resolution, when he requested an appropriation by 
the Committee of Ways and Means as his indemnity for that amount? Or can 
you account for and explain that discrepancy ? 

13. Why were Little & Brown’s Revised Statutes at Large omitted in your 
account, while they are included in the receipts of 21 members for the other 
books enumerated in your account ? 

14. Why did you purchase Jefferson’s Works, which were not of the number 
purchased for the preceding Congress, and therefore not within the contempla¬ 
tion of the resolution of July 7, 1856, but were otherwise provided for, and 
supplied from the Congress Library; which discrepancies mismatch your ac¬ 
count and the vouchers in the case ? 

Hon. Lewis D. Campbell : 

Did or did not Mr. Cullum state to the Committee of Ways and Means at the 
last session, when you were its Chairman, that he had expended $50,000 in the 
purchase of books under the resolution of July 7, 1856, and ask an appropria¬ 
tion of that sum for his indemnity, without presenting any evidence to sub¬ 
stantiate it ? And was not the amount so asked for inserted in an appropriation 

B 


26 


INTERROGATORIES. 


bill at the earnest instance of the Hon. Howell Cobb, then a member of the 
Committee, adducing no evidence of the expenditure having actually been made ? 

Mr. Edward Deeble : 

Did you not state in your affidavit of the 3d August, 1857, that about the 
20th of July, 1856, you called, at the request of Messrs. Gales & Seaton, 
on Mr. Cullom, for the purpose of obtaining an order for their books for the 
use of members, &c., to which Mr. Cullom replied, “I have not given it a 
thought yet; nor will I act on the matter until an appropriation is made to pay 
for them; and then the order will be given for any quantity I may want. I 
will not take the least responsibility. When the appropriation is made, I will 
act, and not before ?” Or words to that effect? 

W. W. Seaton, esq.: 

What do you know of the frauds alleged of Mr. Cullom and his agent, H. 
Tyler, in the purchase of books under the resolution of July 7, 1856, or exac¬ 
tions and peculations by either ? 

Mr. 0. II. Morrison: 

While you were, in a business transaction with Mr. Cullom, demanding and 
receiving from him the amount of an appropriation for certain books that had 
been delivered to him, did he or did he not profess and declare that he had a 
right to all the perquisites he could make from the contingent fund of the House 
of Representatives? 

Hon. Thomas L. Smith, First Auditor of the Treasury: 

In your letter of the 14th July, 1857, to the Hon. W. Medill, First Comp¬ 
troller of the Treasury, acknowledging the receipt of his letter of the 10th, 
enclosing to you certain papers therein mentioned, among others, the account 
of H. Tyler, for your official action, receipted to Mr. Cullom for the purchase 
of books charged against the contingent fund of the House of Representatives, 
by Mr. Cullom, did you not, for certain reasons therein stated, return that ac¬ 
count to the Comptroller as an account required, by the 102d rule of the House, 
to be approved by the Accounting Committee of the House and endorsed by its 
Chairman, before it could be acted on by your office ? And did not the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, the Hon. Howell Cobb, overrule your decision, and cause 
the account to be remanded to you for settlement, under special rules pre¬ 
scribed by himself for this particular case ? and did you not ultimately pass 
and certify the account to the Comptroller ? 

Hon. W. Medill, First Comptroller of the Treasury: 

After you had countersigned the treasury warrant, in the payment of Mr. 
Cullom’s account, did you not remark to Dr. Robert Mayo, that “ it was hard 
to war against the Secretary ?” and that, “if they should be prosecuted (speak¬ 
ing of Mr. Cullom and Mr. Tyler) you would help to convict them of perjury ?” 
adding, that “ such frauds are of frequent occurrence on the Pension Office, for 
which the parties are often prosecuted and convicted ?” 

McClintick Young, esq. 

During the long period while you were Chief Clerk, and occasionally acting 
Secretary of the Treasury Department, were not the constructions of law and 
decisions by Mr. Wirt, Wm. H. Crawford, Judge Woodbury, Judge Taney, Pres¬ 
idents Jackson, Polk, and Tyler, and Postmaster General Amos Kendall, deny¬ 
ing the right of interference by any head of Department or President of the 
United States with the accounting officers of the Treasury, in the settlements 
of public accounts, held sacred and inviolable ? Or if any such interference 
was known to have occurred, was it not resisted by the Comptroller ? 

John M. Broadhead, esq., late Second Comptroller of the Treasury : 

What do you know of opinions and decisions of late Presidents and heads of 
Departments, denying the right or legality of any official interference with the 
accounting officers of the Treasury in the settlement of public accounts ? 


ANTAGONISM IN COMMITTEE. 


27 


I would .also avail myself of the consent and authority of the honorable Com¬ 
mittee of Investigation, to refer to the 2d, 8d, 4th, and 5th Auditors, or their 
Chief Clerks, to say what is the law and rule of their offices, in the examina¬ 
tion and settlement of an impeached account or claim, when witnesses against 
such account or claim are known to them ? 

Also whether they recognize the interference of any head of Department in 
their settlement of public accounts either before or after settlement ? And 
that, if such interference should occur before or during the progress of settle¬ 
ment, would it not be regarded as evidence of a foregone determination of such 
head of Department that such account should be settled according to his views 
and wishes, equivalent to substituting himself in the place of such accounting 
officers ? 

I would also suggest, that said Auditors, or their Chief Clerks, be requested 
to state whether a voucher containing items, not authorized or allowed by law, 
would not falsify the account ?—such being the case in the vouchers or receipts 
of the 21 members, for books alleged to have been purchased and delivered to, 
and received by them. 

And, finally, whether all these irregularities and violations of rule, arising 
chiefly from the interference of a head of Department with the accounting officers, 
would not be satisfactory evidence that he regarded such account as suspicious 
or fraudulent, and was therefore predetermined to coerce its passage, and pre¬ 
vent the accounting officers from rejecting or suspending it ? 

R. M. 


ANTAGONISM IN COMBlITTEE. 

Having, heretofore, spoken of the Committee of Investigation mostly as a 
homogeneous body, it is proper, before dismissing this “Review” of the printed 
testimony, that I should discriminate between the antagonizing parties devel¬ 
oped in the report of the committee. It will be obvious to any intelligent 
reader, on perusing the testimony, that such antagonism actually existed be¬ 
tween Mr. Maynard the chairman of the committee, Mr. Ricaud, and Mr. 
Cullom the honorary member of the committee, on the one hand, and Mr. 
Curry, Mr. Horton, and Mr. Davis, on the other hand. And it will be further 
perceived, that Mr. Cullom, who was in constant attendance, assumed every 
license, or was permitted, under the wing of the chairman, to put the principal 
witnesses on trial instead of himself, until checked by Mr. Curry and Mr. Hor¬ 
ton ; and that any “misfeasance,” “malfeasance,” “ corruption,” or “derelic¬ 
tion of duty” on the part of Mr. Cullom would have been exonerated by Mr. 
Maynard;” nor would Mr. Ricaud lay far behind him in that object:—while 
the interrogatories propounded to witnesses by Mr. Curry, Mr. Horton, and 
Mr. Davis showed a determined and commendable purpose to elicit the truth 
on all occasions. This antagonism was probably the reason that there were no 
signatures to the Report. If Messrs. Curry, Horton, and Davis would not 
sign this exonerating Report, Mr. Maynard and Mr. Ricaud probably declined 
to sign it, as that would give it the character of a minority Report; and having 
no signatures at all, would leave it under the seeming of a unanimous Report. 
And this object would be the more effectually accomplished, by the Report 
being delayed, by the chairman, to the end of the session, thereby avoiding all 
inquiry or discussion about it. 



28 


POSTSCRIPT. 


I know I do no injustice to Mr. Maynard or Mr. llicaud. A single instance, 
out of a dozen or more, would suffice to show that. Take, for example, the 
foregoing interrogatories for H. Tyler, which could not have been answered 
truthfully without convicting himself and Cullom ; but others were substituted 
for them, when Mr. Ricaud took his testimony in New York, obviously to ex¬ 
onerate the late Clerk, as far as such negative testimony could do, in the face 
of so much positive evidence to the contrary. 

ROBERT MAYO. 

Washington, May 2, 1859. 


Postscript. —Since the above was in type I have concluded to cite two other 
instances in confirmation of the purpose of the controlling spirits in the com¬ 
mittee, to pervert the object for which the committee was raised, and to make 
a white-washing report instead of it. 

1st. When I was before the committee, Mr. Cullom—whose “ conduct and ac¬ 
counts” were arraigned for the investigation of the committee, and who was con¬ 
tinually present as a privileged member of the committee, without any authority 
of the resolution raising the committee, and contrary to the rule and practice 
of other investigating committees—commenced a cross fire upon me, which I re¬ 
pelled effectually in the first instance, and was finally sustained against a second 
instance, by the interposition of Mr. Horton—Mr. Curry and Mr. Davis being 
absent. But the cross fire upon me was kept up by Mr. Maynard and Mr. Ri¬ 
caud alternately, throughout my testimony—from page 459 to 471 of the Report. 
At last, Avhen the subject of the late Clerk’s requisition for $50,000 was intro¬ 
duced, (page 469, Report,) the following questions and answers were made, viz: 

“ Question by Mr. Ricand. Do you say that this requisition of $50,000 was to indemnify the Clerk? 
Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. Or, was it merely to enable the Clerk to supply members with books? 
Ans. It was to indemnify the Clerk, according to my recollection of Mr. Whittlesey’s statement 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the statement is here. It was to indemnify the Clerk for 
money paid for books. Ques. by the Chairman. Did you ever see that requisition ? Ans. No sir, 
but I have seen the statement of Mr. Whittlesey in regard to it. Mr. Ricaud. You are mistaken 
in regard to the character of the requisition. We have the paper before us; Mr. Whittlesey was mis¬ 
taken about it. Chairman. It is but justice to yourself to have this statement go upon the record, 
as the documents do not sustain this statement, that the requisition was of that character. 
Mr. Ricaud. The requisition for $50,000 was for a part of the $138,000* appropriated by the act 
of the 3d March, 1857. Witness. Well, sir, I will show you, and I am glad the thing has come up. 
I have here two letters from Mr. Whittlesey after he left the Department. Question by the 
Chairman. Are those letters addressed to you or the officers of the Department? Ans. They are 
addressed to me and relate to this matter, and state that he (Mr. W.) would not countersign the 
warrant unless the Clerk gave proof that he had purchased those books.” 

Not desiring to question the truth or ingenuousness of those statements, I 
did not request to see the paper, or ask how it came before the committee, 
neither of which would probably have been responded to except by refusal; 
but its being asserted to be before the committee, I presumed its publication 
would be a matter of course, and would show whether Mr. Whittlesey was ac¬ 
tually mistaken. But, both in dereliction of duty, and contrary to the zeal 
manifested by Mr. Maynard and Mr. Ricaud to give shape to this investigation 

*The indemnity itself was part of the $138,000 appropriation, and my requisition for the pur¬ 
chase ot books would be for part of that appropriation. 





POSTSCRIPT. 


29 


mainly for the vindication of the late Clerk, it has been withheld from the pub¬ 
lication, though forming a part of the documents of the committee, and neces¬ 
sary to vindicate the declaration that the late Comptroller was mistaken in its 
chai’acter. Moreover, the statement by the late Clerk, to the Committee of 
Ways and Means, that $50,000 would cover his liabilities for the purchase of 
books, renders it still more probable that this was the 'pretence for which he 
wished to get the $50,000 in his possession, perhaps without clearly specifying 
its object, and which justified Mr. Whittlesey in his construction of it in his 
letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, of the 21st March, 1857, in which he 
speaks of it thus: 

“ I declined to certify said requisition to you for your warrant for two reasons: 1st. It was not 
accompanied with any proof that he had purchased any part of the books under the resolution 
of the House of Representatives of July 7, 1856. 2d. And if proof of that fact had been presentod, 
there was no evidence to show that the books were within control of the Clerk to forward to the 
public libraries, to which the law requires them to be sent. I now submit to your consideration, that 
proof on both points should be made before the appropriation or any part of it should be placed 
in the hands of the said Clerk.” See page 28 of the Report. 

The proviso requiring the books to be sent to public libraries to be designated 
by the members, has not been executed in regard to the 21 members who gave 
receipts for the books before the appropriation was made to pay for them. If 
a law requires a thing to be done which proves to be impracticable, it should 
lay over for a declaratory act to remedy the difficulty. But instead of this 
course, the Secretary, in his interference with the accounting officers, required 
them to evade this provision of the law, by passing the account for the 21 
sets of books, though there was no evidence that they had been purchased 
according to law, or transmitted to libraries in the congressional districts, as 
required by the proviso, or that they had actually been delivered to the mem¬ 
bers themselves. 

2d. A further instance in proof of the deliberate purpose of Mr. Maynard to 
pervert the legitimate object of the House in raising the committee to investi¬ 
gate the accounts and conduct of the late Clerk, is to be found in his assertion, 
at page 460 of the Report, that— 

“ This Committee is one raised by the House of Representatives, at the instance and request of 
Mr. Cullom, in order that he may have an opportunity to vindicate his character, if it is suscep¬ 
tible of vindication.” 

0 

Knowing that such was an entire misrepresentation of the object of the House, 
and of the origin of the resolution to raise such committee, when he made this 
assertion, Mr Maynard could not have forgotten that the resolution for a com¬ 
mittee of investigation into certain charges against the late Clerk was moved by 
Mr. Clingman, who concluded his reasons for moving in the matter by saying: 

“ If any officer of this House is in combination -with outsiders to manage in that way to get 
money improperly by buying at a low rate, and charging the government at a high rate, it ought 
to be a penitentiary offence.” 

Nor could Mr. Maynard have forgotten that he was warmed into activity by 
the prompting of his friend Mr. Cullom, to throw himself in the way of obtain¬ 
ing the appointment of chairman of the committee, by a declaration of the 


30 


POSTSCRIPT. 


principles that would govern him, “ independent of party or personal friendship,” 
when the raising of the committee had become inevitable, and Mr. Clingman 
had expressed his determination not to serve on the committee. 

How far Mr. Maynard may have rendered himself amenable, for perverting 
the object of the investigation, and lending himself to the purpose of exoner¬ 
ating his friend from “misfeasance,” “malfeasance,” and “dereliction of duty,” 
in despite of numerous such violations of law, (though it would doubtless have 
been very well received if it could have been done with truth and fairness,) I 
will not undertake to say. But, without agitating that question here, while 
ignorance of the law is denied as an excuse for the most illiterate and ignorant 
offender, the intimation of an honorable witness from his own State, that fees, 
commissions, perquisites, profits, or emoluments of any sort outside of the salary 
must be founded “ in some provision of lawf or in a violation of law, for which 
ignorance can be no plea, the late Clerk is convicted of embezzlement, in every 
instance of such illegal “ peculations ” proved by the testimony upon his agents, 
as fully as if they had been practised by himself personally; so that Mr. May¬ 
nard’s putting witnesses on trial instead of his friend, and taking all convenient 
occasions to exonerate him from any “dereliction of duty,” is love’s labor lost, 
as will appear from the further evidences of public reproof foreshadowed in 
the following letter from a highly talented and patriotic citizen of Eastern 
Virginia: 


“ Da. R. Mayo, Washington : 


“ N-R-, May —, 1859. 


“ My Dear Sir: I received your kind letter some days since, and with it 
your scathing ‘ Review’ of General Cullom’s official conduct. 1 see the Grand 
Jury has taken the General in hand. 

“What is to be the fate of our Government, if these wholesale corruptions 
are not checked ? What chance has an honest constituency , when such vampires 
on the body politic control public offices ? 

“ I confess I feel humiliated, as an American citizen, to find our young Re¬ 
public outstripping all other Governments in Open Corruptions. ‘We, the 
People,’ cannot, as in former days, look upon our Government with pride and 
confidence. We seem to be steadily but rapidly moving on to the fate that has 
attended all Republics!! 

Yours, sincerely, 


* * ******” 


I must say, that I feel perfectly justified in giving the above a place here. 
I withhold the writer’s name, because the letter was obviously not intended for 
publication. But the fervid patriotism, and the awful forebodings it breathes, 
must awaken “ the People” to a just sense of the dangerous crisis with which 
they are threatened, and which many think is already upon us. It may induce 
the reflecting portion of the Democracy, of all parties who desire to see every 
department of the Government entrusted to well-tried and faithful public ser¬ 
vants, to trace the existing evil and the threatened catastrophy to their true 
cause lae “ demagogism” by which the people are converted into instru¬ 
ments of their own pending destruction, which they alone can avert. 

It may seem a solecism, as it is an anomaly, which at first appears absurd, 
that the seeds of free government and of its destruction are the germs of the 
same popular franchise, which may preserve it or destroy it, as it is conducted 




t 


POSTSCRIPT. 


1 


A 


1 

t 


<>i 

o l 


with virtuous discretion or with venal profligacy for sinister purposes, with¬ 
out due regard to the good and the safety‘of the commonwealth. 

To recite the numerous modes by which interested demagogism seeks to re¬ 
duce the polular franchise to a subserviency for the immolation of the public 
weal, must be waived here, and commended to popular detection and denunci¬ 
ation on all suitable occasions. But I may say, that if no other of the numer¬ 
ous devices brought to bear on popular credulity by interested political aspi¬ 
rants need be recited here, that alone which levies “ black-mail” on officers in 
the public service, and on free citizens themselves, to corrupt and control the 
franchise at the polls of popular elections, which has been brought into opera¬ 
tion of late years, to undermine this essential foundation of free and pure 
government, ought not to be passed in silence. The purity of the elective fran¬ 
chise in our institutions is the sacred trust and charge of the People ! That 
trust, being for the public good, cannot be bartered for office, or any other 
interested consideration. If they will expurgate its abuses whenever they occur, 
there will then be no necessity to despair of the Republic. 

ROBERT MAYO. A 

Washington, May 10th, 1859. 


i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
















